For some time now, there has been extensive debate in the church on how to understand the early chapters of Genesis. The focus has normally been on the length of the days in chapter one. Is it describing six, literal days? Or is the author just using a “literary framework”? Or is each day an age, or epoch of time?
In the midst of these debates, there lies a more core, and foundational issue, namely whether Adam was a real historical individual, created directly by God, from which all human beings descend. Aside from the length of days, this is the issue on which much theological truth depends.
Without a real, historical Adam, Paul’s discussion about imputed sin in Romans 5 loses its force. If all humanity did not descend from Adam, then there are questions about whether Adam’s guilt and corruption really extended to all people.
One of the best treatments of this issue that I have seen in recent years is the recent lecture given by Dr. Richard Belcher at RTS Charlotte’s convocation: “The Historical Adam: Why it Really Matters.”
He provides an interesting overview of the various challenges to the historical Adam, the varied solutions that people have tried to provide, and a defense of the historical Christian position that in Gen 2:7 Adam was created directly by God from the dust of the earth, and did not infuse a soul into a pre-existing hominid or ape.
Dr. Belcher says:
If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the gospel.
I would add one additional argument to Dr. Belcher’s exegesis of Gen 2:7 (which he no doubt would have covered if he had more time). The text tells us that when God created Adam from the dust and breathed life into him, that Adam became a nephesh chaya, a “living being.” This phrase is also used elsewhere in Genesis 1 to describe other living creatures, like animals.
But, if Adam only became a nephesh chaya after God formed him from the dust, then this rules out the possibility that God simply infused a soul into a hominid or ape. For if God had done so, then Adam would have already been a nephesh chaya prior to God’s activity. Put differently, Gen 2:7 makes it clear that God directly created Adam from non-living material.
If you want to listen to Dr. Belcher’s lecture, see here: [download]
CMA says
I would love to see some interaction with some of the conservative Hebrew language scholars who have some pretty compelling input on this subject.
Please read these and comment:
Hebrew scholar Robert Holmstedt on Gen 1:1-3 – http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/genesis-1-hebrew-grammar-translation/
Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser (works for LOGOS) on the “two” creations of Genesis – http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2012/07/genesis-13-face-compatible-genome-research/
Please somebody interact with this kind of stuff and then harmonize the importance of Paul’s theology and Adam. As a reformed, amillennialist, credo-baptist, Seinfeld junkie, I get frustrated when scholars are not interacting with the ones they should be interacting with. We notice!
James F. McGrath says
I have to say that I don’t find these arguments compelling. If the Adam narrative is, as many interpreters understand it to be, an analysis of the human condition and not an explanation of how we got this way, then treating it as the latter actually misses the point and shifts the blame from us to an ancestor (rather ironic, I think, given how that story ends). And the fact that the ancient authors of Genesis thought that living things came into existence either when God formed them with divine hands, or through spontaneous generation at God’s command, has no more bearing than the fact that they thought the sky was a solid dome.
I find it depressing that anyone is still engaging in these exercises in selective literalism.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, James. Appreciate your thoughts. But I think the key is just what you said: “If the Adam narrative is, as many interpreters understand it to be…” The modern interpretation that you are referring to has not been the historical position of the church throughout the ages. Nor, I would argue, was it the position of Paul or Jesus. All of these groups treated Adam as (a) a real historical individual, and (b) an explanation for how sin entered the world. I recognize that you (and many modern interpreters) are free to reject the history of the church in this regard (and for that matter, Jesus and Paul). But, the fact that some still hold the historical view should not be deemed so peculiar as you maintain. And certainly there is no cause for regarding it as “depressing.” I know there is a modern tendency to say people in the past were just simpletons and only we moderns really get it. But, there are some who regard the historical view of the church as one still worth considering.
James F. McGrath says
Well, people often assumed that it was how sin entered the world. But when they did so, they often took the story in directions that are at odds with what the story actually says – including most notably turning the serpent into a supernatural angelic being. But at any rate, there are lots of ancient assumptions that we no longer hold to, and so that is neither here nor there. But I am not persuaded that Paul understood the text as you claim. He focuses on Adam only because Christ was one man and it makes for a nice contrast. If he were a literalist, he would have said “Just as through two human beings sin entered the world.”
I don’t view the ancients as simpletons, and as an analysis of the human condition, Genesis 3 is insightful. But it doesn’t offer modern scientific information, and neither does it offer an explanation of sin being transmitted. There is simply nothing in Genesis suggesting that sin passes down in hereditary fashion, except perhaps through the influence of human beings on each subsequent generation. And Paul seems to get that. He is not suggesting that we have some sort of gene therapy in Christ, nor that those who are his children rather than Adam’s are free from sin. He contrasts two ways of being human, and invites us, without ceasing to be children of Adam, i.e. people who live as Adam did, to take our place in Christ and relate to God differently.
anaquaduck says
Science or scientists, makes many assumptions. Not mentioning “Satan” in Gen 3 doesn’t mean he wasn’t there as a Spirit. In terms of Judas…Satan entered in at a particular time Luke 22:3.
The lies with which Satan tempted Jesus with in the wilderness & his daily hindering of the kingdom demonstrates what great lengths he would go to in his rebellion against God. Thankfully Jesus went much further, our only hope in a spiritual sense.
I would say there are just some things that can’t be interpreted under the microscope or a study, faith would be one. Hence the importance of Theology & stuff like that regarding the human condition, death & decay, post fall.
steve hays says
“Well, people often assumed that it was how sin entered the world. But when they did so, they often took the story in directions that are at odds with what the story actually says – including most notably turning the serpent into a supernatural angelic being.”
Actually, people in the ancient world often viewed “snakes” as supernatural beings. They believed in snake-gods, fire-breathing snakes guarding the Netherworld, &c.
“But I am not persuaded that Paul understood the text as you claim. He focuses on Adam only because Christ was one man and it makes for a nice contrast. If he were a literalist, he would have said ‘Just as through two human beings sin entered the world.'”
Here’s what Joseph Fitzmyer has to say: “Paul treats Adam as a historical human being, humanity’s first parent, and contrasts him with the historical Jesus Christ…Some commentators on Romans have tried to interpret Adam in this symbolic sense here…but that reading does violence to the contrast that Paul uses in this paragraph between Adam as ‘one man’ and Christ as ‘one man,’ which implies that Adam was a historical individual much as was Jesus Christ,” Romans (Doubleday 1993), 407-08.
This is despite the fact that Fitzmyer rejects the historicity of Adam and disagrees with Paul’s interpretation of Genesis. But even though he’s just as liberal as McGrath, he’s honest enough to let Paul speak for himself.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Mike, James,
It still comes down to who do we “believe” to be the FINAL authority. It is common to say in most doctrinal statements that “The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice” with some variation thereof. But this statement is really incorrect for it places a dichotomy between faith and practice (theological doctrine and behavior) and between what is historical and scientific. The doctrine of the Bible should read: “The Bible is the sole and final authority on ALL that it TEACHES not just faith and practice. There is the notion then that faith is not only subjective, BUT OBJECTIVE. This is because faith and knowledge are both intuitive, intellectual and experiential. The Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus is based, in part, on the issue of the historical Adam both in the Creation, creation of Adam, Eve and the Sin of Adam.
I know this is late on commenting, but probably it would be good to read the latest post by Jared Oliphant, http://www.reformation21.org/articles/our-makebelieve-parents-when-adam-becomes-more-fiction-than-fact.php, “Our Make-Believe Parents: When Adam Becomes More Fiction than Fact” which follows:
In Sunday School rooms across a wide spectrum of churches, you will find Bible storybooks that, around page one, display pictures of Adam and Eve, with illustrators using their best judgment on whether to use well-placed leaves, strategic cropping, or selective poses appropriately to censor the reality of Adam and Eve’s nakedness. It’s the beginning of our story, and the beginning is sometimes as important as the end. But that reality, and more importantly our first parents’ existence, has been and continues to be challenged and denied by some voices even within the church.
The Problem
Mainstream natural science – human genetics, DNA coding, anthropological archeology, etc. – has been studying the origins of man for some time and it seems there is now a consensus: we can no longer believe that humanity has descended from an original pair of human beings. The evidence for original human parents, according to some, is wholly lacking and, in fact, points positively to a community of sub-human species hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is from this kind of community, the argument goes, that humans have evolved. As one Old Testament scholar puts it, “The scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human [Adam], such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option.” (1)
By “historical Adam” we mean this: if there had been surveillance footage of the garden of Eden, it would have captured dust from the earth in motion, taking the form and shape of the first male human being. It would have captured a single set of footprints all over the garden and, at some point, would have captured two sets of human footprints and audio of a conversation between a couple and a serpent (among other things).
The church is faced with a range of possible responses to the scientific challenge. In the current theological climate, “science” plays the part of the cool kid, with some on the outside displaying a desperation for wanting to be in that popular inner circle, while also illustrating the difference between melodramatic (denying the existence of a historical Adam) and dramatic (being alarmed at the latest scientific challenge to Scripture).
On the other hand, those tempted to dismiss natural science as a discipline should know that is not an option, mainly because it is next to impossible, or at least is pragmatically inconsistent. Many of the same scientific laws and methodology that produce findings on genetics are also responsible for treatments of cancer, data on distant galaxies, medicinal and surgical advances for premature babies, and a host of products and technologies we consume and enjoy every day.
Prioritizing select scientific findings is often self-labeled as “progressive,” though that term prematurely assumes one’s view is not only correct, but is advanced beyond the opposing view. When the latest scientific findings are positioned as advances in both science and in our theological understanding of Scripture, concern inevitably grows over whether believers will be left behind if we opt to ignore recent conclusive evidence. After all, what is the point in studying Scripture if we shut out theological progress, especially when shutting out that progress leaves Christians embarrassed in the face of the scientific community and, therefore, the broader culture at large?
The Question of Authority
Christians who are aware of the historical Adam discussion now find themselves in an unsettling game of Choose Your Authority: Scientific/literary evidence vs. Scripture. Fortunately, Scripture itself has something to say about this.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:16-21)
Peter is recalling one of the most earth-shattering experiences from his walk with Jesus when he was with him on the Mount of Transfiguration (see Matt. 17:1-13). In recounting the event, Peter is concerned to tell us that he was an eyewitness (v. 16) and heard God the Father’s voice from heaven (v. 18). Immediately after mentioning this historical event, with what initially seems like a jarring segue into describing the process of divine inspiration, Peter tells us that Scripture is not produced from man’s interpretation or will (v. 20-21) but by God himself through the Spirit. Why? The historicity of the events of Jesus’ life are inseparably tied to Scripture’s truthfulness.
The Apostle Paul evidences the same kind of thinking in two important passages for our purposes:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Justas we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor. 15: 45-49)
Paul is clear that the gospel message is objective. The truth and objectivity of the gospel are characteristics of the message itself rather than the human agent delivering the message. The truth of the gospel does not change, not even if one who is in authority, including Paul himself or even an angel, decides to veer from the more ultimate authority of Scripture and preach what is contrary. And what does Paul say the gospel is? It is the death and resurrection of Christ according to Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3f), a historical event that had eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Paul pairs this gospel event in history with Adam becoming a living being (v. 45), formed from the physical (psuchikos in the original) earth and dust (v. 47-48), and passing his dusty image to all of humanity (v. 49). Paul assumes and argues for the historicity and historical implications of Adam and the events surrounding his life, inseparably linking and contrasting him to the historical existence of Christ and the events surrounding his life.
Returning to Peter, he writes,
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Pet. 3:1-7)
Generations of Christians have faced the scientific challenge/assumption that the “laws” of nature necessarily never bend. Even in the first century, though, Peter knew the challenge would be posed to the early church: the promise of Christ’s second coming looks unlikely. Laws of nature have not deviated (v. 4). Peter answers this charge by reminding his readers that it is God’s word that caused the heavens and earth to exist in the first place and his word that caused a deluge over the whole earth with the Flood. That same word will bring an end to the present age when Christ returns at a point in human history, Peter says. God’s word not only causes historical events to occur, but also has authority to cause events that deviate from the otherwise regular pattern and laws of nature.
In denying a historical Adam, what kind of historical protection is offered for biblical passages that include events like the virgin birth of Christ, or events in the Old Testament like Balaam’s talking donkey (Num. 22:22f)? Where is the scientific evidence for the burning bush or the parting of the Red Sea? Under what we could term “theological scientism,” there are a number of alarming consequences.
First, divine authorship offers no guarantee of truth. If we allow that Paul is simply wrong on the historicity of Adam, it does us no good to quarantine Paul’s mistake to his historical belief, while arbitrarily affirming the truthfulness of Paul’s “theological beliefs” recorded in Scripture.
Second, divine authorship carries no more authorial weight than mainstream scientific conclusions. If scientific consensus determines which events are historical, the possibility of Christ (or Lazarus, for that matter) truly dying and truly being raised to life is denied before the question can be raised (no pun intended). The church is put in the position of being dependent on the scientific community to inform us about which portions of Scripture, if any, are valid.
The words of the writer of Ecclesiastes are perennially wise: “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). As long as science and theology remain disciplines, challenges to Christian belief will appear from pockets of science. The same brand of science that has no room for a historical Adam has no room for a virgin birth. Or miracles. Or bodily resurrection. Or ascension. Some current theologians seem to exhibit selective amnesia, forgetting that this brand of liberalism that denies the supernatural and subordinates Scripture to particular streams within science has already been ably answered in the church.
Those searching for confidence in Scripture under this method of interpretation will be left wanting. The half-hearted explanations given for why, in the face of denying a historical Adam, we should still trust Scripture sound like the hazy non-logic of a college student discovering Zen – there are abundant references not to truth but a “conversation,” along with an unwavering certainty on some things and suspicion of others’ certainty about anything. Under the theological accommodation of scientism, though Paul got this one wrong, and the Chronicler (1 Chr. 1:1), and Hosea (Hos. 6:7), and Luke (Lk. 3:38), and Jude (Jude 1:14), and Jesus (Mark 10:6-9), we are still assured that somehow Scripture is still trustworthy and inspired. We are still assured that God’s character remains intact.
Fortunately, there are Christians who do not reject science as a discipline but instead use it to God’s glory in demonstrating the truth about his world. They are looking at the same scientific data regarding the origins of life and coming to orthodox conclusions in ways that do justice to the appropriate parameters and integrity of the scientific disciplines. If anything positive emerges from the recent scientific challenges, it may be prompting believers to defend afresh God’s truth with Scripture in hand. Such challenges can be used by God to speak the truth of his word into the current scientific context. The question we hear from those who deny what is expressly set in Scripture is the same question asked in Gen. 3:1, “Did God actually say there was an Adam?”
For some helpful resources on digging deeper into this issue, here is one place to start: “Resources on the Historical Adam.”
Notes:
1. Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Bazos Press, 2012), 122.
steve hays says
To say they thought the sky was a solid dome says more about McGrath’s naivete than theirs.
James F. McGrath says
It has nothing to do with anyone’s naivete, and has only to do with the meaning of Hebrew words.
steve hays says
i) To begin with, words can used metaphorically.
ii) Even liberal scholars dispute the solid dome interpretation (e.g. Baruch Halpern). John Walton now rejects the solid dome interpretation.
iii) The OT contains various passages attesting the fact that ancient Israelites knew than rain came from rainclouds.
iv) Ancient Near Easterners could see for themselves that rain came from rainclouds.
Ken Temple says
Dr. James McGrath wrote:
“. . . neither does it offer an explanation of sin being transmitted.”
But is not that the subtle point of the author in Genesis 6-9? – that after all humans are judged in the flood, except for those 8, even though Noah found grace with God and was considered righteous, after the flood is over, the Genesis narrative shows that sin is still deep in the heart and comes out again in the drunkeness of Noah, the sin of Ham (whatever it was, some of sexual disrespect of his father), which shows that Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 are still true that “the wickedness of man was great on the earth, that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously” and “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Also the sins of Lots daughters after evil is supposedly destroyed in Sodom and Gommorah? Is not the author of Genesis demonstrating in historical narrative that sin is passed down from Adam genetically to all humans?
Genesis 4 also – The way the first children of Adam act – Cain’s lack of faith in worship (with Hebrews 11) and lack of bringing the first-fruits (Romans 1:19-23 reflects this, the lack of true worship and gratefulness being a root of sin), and then his jealousy and anger and hatred, and killing Abel also immediately shows us inherited sin in the human heart, right after Genesis 1-3.
All of this fits with Psalm 58:3 – “from the womb, evil” and Psalm 51:5 – “in iniquity I was formed in my mother’s womb” and Paul in Romans 5:12 reflects all of this understanding.
James F. McGrath says
I would say no. Not that one cannot piece together prooftexts for this view. But it is noteworthy that at these points the poetic hyperbole of the psalmists is taken literally, while other things that are problematic like the Earth’s immobility are treated as metaphors, when the ancient Israelite assumptions if anything seem to have been the reverse. And reading the notion of genes into these ancient texts just makes them say something that they never would have been understood to until very recently. What’s next? Jesus as provider of gene therapy to resolve the sin problem? Why approach the text in a manner that shows no interest in what these texts meant for their authors and earliest readers?
Ken Temple says
It seems like you dismissed all the evidence from Genesis 4, 6:5; 8:21; 19, chapters 6-9; Psalm 58:3; 51:5; Romans 1:19-23; Romans 5:12.
Also, Hebrews 7:9-10 – Levi was in the loins of Abraham. That is an ancient way of talking about genes, no?
steve hays says
“But it is noteworthy that at these points the poetic hyperbole of the psalmists is taken literally, while other things that are problematic like the Earth’s immobility are treated as metaphors, when the ancient Israelite assumptions if anything seem to have been the reverse.”
McGrath is so confused. He acts as if Ptolemaic astronomy supplies the background for the Psalms. But that’s grossly anachronistic. In the Psalms, the “Earth’s immobility” has reference to God protecting his people from catastrophic earthquakes, not celestial mechanics.
James F. McGrath says
It is literal, except when you say it is about something else. How conenient.
Having tried to reason with you before, and having had you waste my pastor’s time as well as my own, you will excuse me if I decide that you are not the sort of person I care to interact with, and have the level of the conversation plummet.
steve hays says
No, not “convenient.” I gave a reason. Notice that McGrath has no counterargument.
I understand that you don’t care to interact with people who call your bluff, forcing you to fold and head for the nearest exit.
James F. McGrath says
I have tried reasoning with you in the past. Has your behavior improved since then? If you were unresponsive to evidence and arguments then, and decided it was worth writing to my pastor because of your own bizarre sense of self-importance as some sort of internet orthodoxy police, I think I have good reason to not wish to waste my time again as well as that of others. All of that earlier interaction is still on line, should anyone wish to see it. But I see no good reason for repeating it.
steve hays says
Notice McGrath’s modus operandi. Because his claims are indefensible, he resorts to adjectives (“Liars!”) and self-serving characterizations.
Ken Temple says
I find it depressing that anyone is still engaging in these exercises in selective literalism.
I find it depressing that scholars are capitulating to Darwinian Evolution; and add too much scholarly writing to feed the doubts of people whom Satan is whispering in their ears, “Indeed, did God really say?”
Ken Temple says
Why approach the text in a manner that shows no interest in what these texts meant for their authors and earliest readers?
Actually, I showed lots of evidence from the text of Genesis and subsequent chapters that demonstrate that sin is passed down in the hearts and thoughts to the next generation, even if the “righteous” are saved out from a situation where God destroys the wicked. (Genesis 6-9 – flood; Genesis 19, Sodom and Gommorah – all this demonstrates that the author had a purpose and unified theme in his book. Tower of Babel indicates same thing. It shows an interest in what the text meant for the author and earliest readers.
James F. McGrath says
“Capitulating” to the evidence of the creation is a bad thing? If studying the Bible asking critical questions seems satanic to you, perhaps your faith is in the Bible, and not in the one in whom the Bible says our faith ought to be placed.
Hebrews 7 reflects an ancient understanding of procreation, not a modern one informed by genetics and biology. Or did you understand Hebrews 7 to mean that genes which would eventually form Levi were in Abraham – not just in his loins, but in every cell? That doesn’t seem to me to be what the text is saying.
Ken Temple says
I don’t think there is much solid evidence for macro-Evolution. (A change from one species to another species / clear transitional forms)
I think these views are within the pale of Biblical orthodoxy:
1. Six day creationism / young earth (strongest exegetical support; Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11)
2. Long day view – like Hugh Ross, Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer
3. Gap theory
4. John Sailhammer’s view – Genesis Unbound – still protects Adam and Eve as real historical people from which all other people come from.
But admittedly, before the sun was created on Day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19), everything before that time is a mystery as to how God is measuring time, and unknowable, except for God’s revelation to us. But light (the substance of light that is in every star in the universe) was already created on day 1, so there is no contradiction of Genesis with science.
But I don’t think Theistic Evolution is defendable as compatible with the Bible or Evangelical Faith. Hominids and local flood are not defendable with the text.
But all of these views fit under “Intelligent Design”.
Al Mohler did an excellent job of showing what we surrender when we surrender historical Adam and Eve and young earth creationism.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/conferences/tough-questions-christians-face-2010-national/why-does-the-universe-look-so-old/
James F. McGrath says
I don’t think that any view which misrepresents evidence the way young-earth creationism and Intelligent Design do is compatible with the moral teachings of Christianity. If you reject the clear teaching of Jesus about truth in order to defend that ancient human beings were somehow prescient in their knowledge of modern science, there is really no way you can seriously call yourself a Christian, or your views Christian.
Ken Temple says
Wow; that’s a pretty amazing and over-the top statement; and revealing. Thanks for your thoughts.
steve hays says
“I don’t think that any view which misrepresents evidence the way young-earth creationism and Intelligent Design do is compatible with the moral teachings of Christianity. If you reject the clear teaching of Jesus about truth in order to defend that ancient human beings were somehow prescient in their knowledge of modern science, there is really no way you can seriously call yourself a Christian, or your views Christian.
In the name of truth, McGrath is dissembling:
i) Does McGrath believe the Gospels are historically accurate records of what Jesus taught? Seems highly unlikely.
ii) And even assuming he does grant their accuracy, does McGrath believe that Jesus was the infallible Son of God Incarnate? Does he believe what Jesus said about hell, Jonah, Noah’s flood, the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the creation account (Gen 1-2) in relation to marriage, &c.? Clearly not. He regards Jesus as a child of his times.
Jeff says
It would be great if Christians would stop giving us reasons to leave the Faith (since, in this case, Adam is not historical), and instead focused on reasons why we ought to be a part of it.
steve hays says
i) If you don’t believe the Bible, then you ought to leave the faith. That’s a natural winnowing process.
ii) Christians give abundant reasons for why you ought to be a part of it. It’s called Christian apologetics.
steve hays says
“Hebrews 7 reflects an ancient understanding of procreation, not a modern one informed by genetics and biology.”
Once again, McGrath is hopelessly confused. The author of Hebrews indicates that he’s speaking hyperbolically. How did McGrath manage to miss the parenthetical disclaimer (hos epos eipein)?
Ken Temple says
“But at the heart of liberalism is the denial of purpose in nature. Historically, the key turning point was Charles Darwin. The central elements in Darwin’s theory — random variations, sifted by the blind, automatic process of natural selection — were aimed specifically at getting rid of the concept of purpose or design in biology. As historian Jacques Barzun says, “This denial of purpose is Darwin’s distinctive contention.”
Today we are seeing the real-world results of this denial. Transgenderism treats the scientific facts of human biology as having no intrinsic purpose or significance. It treats the body as nothing but a piece of matter that gives people no clue about who they are as persons. It is a self-alienating worldview that teaches people that their identity as male or female has no inherent purpose or dignity. (For more, see chapter 3 in my book Saving Leonardo.)”
This article is adapted from Saving Leonardo, by Nancy Pearcey, director of the Francis Schaeffer Center for Worldview and Culture at Houston Baptist University and editor at large of The Pearcey Report.
From Triablogue: “Darwinian Evangelicals – a love-hate relationship”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/08/darwinian-evangelicals-lovehate.html
Ken Temple says
Dr. McGrath,
Young Earth Creationism is a form of Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Design is not necessarily Young earth Creationism.
You wrote:
If you reject the clear teaching of Jesus about truth
All conservative who believe in inerrancy believe in Jesus’ clear teaching about truth – He is the truth (John 14:6) and came to testify of the truth (John 18:35-38) that means no other religion or philosophy can save from sin and hell; repentance and conscious faith in Christ is the only way to be saved from sin. See John Piper’s Let the Nations Be Glad. His word is also truth. (John 17:17; Hebrews 4:12) I gather you don’t believe in inerrancy.
in order to defend that ancient human beings were somehow prescient in their knowledge of modern science,
Nothing I wrote says that exactly. Of course God had and has all knowledge of modern science when He inspired Moses to write the Penteteuch and Isaiah to write his prophesy and Matthew and John and Paul to write their books/letters. What I would argue for is that nothing in Genesis or the Bible is contradictary to modern science and as Calvin said, “God praddles with us” or “uses baby talk” so that we can understand. Modern science increases our understanding of how things work through observation and experimentation. There is nothing contradictory to the young earth view of Genesis 1 to observational science and laboratory experiments.
there is really no way you can seriously call yourself a Christian, or your views Christian.
You seem to accuse all those other views of creation as lying (violating truth) and not Christian. But none of them, including mine are saying that Moses and Isaiah and Matthew knew the details of modern science parlance or details of knowledge of how things work, etc.
James F. McGrath says
Young-earth creationists (I say this as someone who used to be one) are only liars and people who repeat what liars say uncritically. That is incompatible with Christianity at its most fundamental level. So too is inerrancy, which treats ancient authors or a book as though they have an attribute which belongs to God alone. It is a form of idolatry, and it is not surprising that it is so closely associated with other false teachings like young-earth creationism.
Ken Temple says
“Only Liars” – that is a very serious charge you make.
Do you have a specific example of a deliberate lie told by the people or articles at http://www.answersingenesis.org ? or other creationists ministries ?
or Ligonier Ministries ?
or Southern Seminary ?
or Reformed Theological Seminary?
or The Master Seminary or Grace to you Ministries?
There are some crude expressions of inerrancy that border on idolatry, but if we believe God is perfect and does not lie, and He inspired these writings (2 Timothy 3:16) in the originals/the autographa, then He did not lie. Inerrancy, properly understood is not idolatry.
Titus 1:2 – “. . . God who cannot lie . . . ” (NASB)
Inerrancy is not incompitable with science or history. Some things are as Calvin wrote, spoken to us as weak humans, “God talking baby talk to us”.
The only errors are copyist errors in the manuscript copies and our own lack of understanding and apparent contradictions, not real contradictions. There are no errors in the auotographa.
The only alternative that you have for even teaching the Bible then, is that these writings are human musings about God, and that only some things are true.
If you jettison inerrancy, it is a domino effect that affects the right view of inspiration- that gets jettisoned also.
Do you think the Biblical writers are just musing about God or did God put in their minds what to write and “breath out” the writings? ( 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
Without inerrancy and inspiration, you have no solid basis for authority or assurance in Christianity. It may not be true. If one part is not true, then other parts may not be true.
Since you jettisoned inerrancy and young Earth Creationism, what other doctrines did you jettison?
eternal conscious hell ?
the necessity of evangelism and missions?
Is repentance from sin and conscious faith in Christ the only way to be saved? (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, John 3:18; Romans 10:9-15)
Is the virginal conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary historical and a true miracle and truth?
Is the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead a real historical resurrection?
Is homosexuality and so called “same sex marriage” ok with you?
James F. McGrath says
Plenty of Christians have documented the falsehoods that groups like Answers in Genesis promulgate. It is sad that so many Christians listen to such people who offer teachings that stroke their egos and tickle their ears, and ignore the voices of Christians who actually work in the relevant scientific fields, such as Francis Collins – to say nothing of Biblical scholars!
steve hays says
Needless to say, there are creationists and intelligent design theorists who work in the relevant scientific fields. Notice that in the name of honesty, McGrath can’t bring himself to honestly represent the opposing side. And, of course, his definition of “Biblical scholars” is anyone who thinks like him.
C. M. Granger says
I don’t agree with AiG, generally speaking, but I do know Andy McIntosh personally (he attended my previous church for 6 months while teaching a course at RPI in Troy, NY, one of the most highly respected science & tech universities in the country). He works in a relevant scientific field, and he’s a humble, gracious servant of Christ. I may not always agree with the position he takes, but he sincerely believes what he teaches is true to science and true to God as revealed in Scripture.
I know for a fact he is not seeking to stroke anyone’s ego or tickle their ears.
steve hays says
“Young-earth creationists (I say this as someone who used to be one) are only liars and people who repeat what liars say uncritically. That is incompatible with Christianity at its most fundamental level.”
Since McGrath thinks the Bible is riddled with falsehoods, what’s his standard of comparison for true Christianity?
“So too is inerrancy, which treats ancient authors or a book as though they have an attribute which belongs to God alone.”
In that event, we can safely disregard everything McGrath says as errant. After all, he’s only human.
“It is a form of idolatry”
By whose definition? The Bible’s? Or McGrath’s?
anaquaduck says
Jesus made it abundantly clear, no talk of multiverses or aliens seeding the human race. No accidental coincidence exploding from something the size of a grape imagined in the human mind.
Being created in the image of God, earths first parents or primary originals are given all they need. The intelligence that was bestowed is to be enjoyed & to glorify God. After the fall humanity becomes twisted, having lost connection humanity wanders alone in its thoughts, this is the true alienation according to Jesus.
Filling the void with all manner of stuff produces stuff but does little in restoring the wonderful relationship that was, that is the depressing & sad truth about this world. What was lost in Eden can only be found in Christ, this is the encouragement of the Scriptures, grace from above, heavenly grace.
Ken Temple says
Thanks Steve for standing for the truth of the Word and giving other rebuttals. More and more, we can see the downward spiral of our culture and how capitulating to Darwinian Evolution and naturalistic materialism is affecting many scholars and professors – amazing.
C. M. Granger says
James McGrath,
What did the apostle Paul mean when he said the Scriptures are “God-breathed”? Could you elaborate on your view of inspiration, as well as your view on original sin? Or point me to where you have stated your position on these issues elsewhere?
Thanks
James F. McGrath says
I think Chris Heard’s suggestion, that the word (not used elsewhere in the Greek Bible) recalls the story of Adam. http://drchris.me/higgaion/?p=1025
I’ve discussed a lot of things on my own blog over the years, about Scripture and many other subjects, and so you can certainly find my own views expressed publicly at length! 🙂
steve hays says
“I think Chris Heard’s suggestion, that the word (not used elsewhere in the Greek Bible) recalls the story of Adam.”
That makes precious little sense. Far more likely is that “God-breathed” is a metaphor for divine speech. Breath=spoken word. Therefore, Scripture is divine speech committed to writing.
C. M. Granger says
I read Chris Heard’s piece, it’s an ample illustration of what happens when you stretch a biblical analogy out of shape in order to buttress a weak theological position. Not compelling.
Gary says
Wow, what a depressing thread of comments. All I can say is that I don’t need Adam in order to need Jesus. I have enough sin of my own on my hands that I don’t require any of his to still need the redemption that only Christ can bring.
steve hays says
According to Luke’s gospel, you can’t have Jesus without Adam: “23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli…38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Lk 3:23,38). So, actually, you do need both.
And according to Paul (Rom 5, 1 Cor 15), Jesus and Adam go together.
Are you just making up your own theology out of thin air?
Ken Temple says
It is interesting to me that most of bloggers at “Progessive Christianity” at Pathos where Dr. McGrath blogs, there is high percentage (maybe all of them are this type) of bloggers who are from the Emergent/Emerging church (Bible and church authority is denigrated and rebelled against; doctrine is made fun of; no longer believe in inerrancy, creation by God’s fiat command in Genesis 1-2; eternal hell, Christ as the only way to be saved from sin; the necessity of missions, necessity of evangelism, judgment day, virgin birth) philosophy – like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones (active promoters of homosexuality and same sex marriage) and many who others who promote feminism and homosexuality as ok and so see “same sex marriage” as ok, and who don’t like doctrine or the Bible.
“when the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3
It seems their agenda is clear.
Gary says
I don’t believe there is a single major doctrine within Christianity that stands or falls on the historicity of a literal Adam, least of all the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ along with the peace between man and God that He accomplished. Even without Adam, men are all sinners who have fallen short of God’s glory and are in need of a redeemer – Jesus. Nor do I think that either Luke’s history or Paul’s rhetoric are invalidated in any way without Adam.
All I’m saying is that perhaps there are other ways to read and understand the bible than the ones you have adopted.
steve hays says
“Nor do I think that either Luke’s history or Paul’s rhetoric are invalidated in any way without Adam.”
So what are you saying? That the Lukan genealogy of Christ is fictitional? If so, how much else of his Gospel is fictional?
Since Paul’s “rhetoric” centers on an extensive comparison and contrast between Adam and Christ, how does reducing Adam to pious fiction not invalidate his argument?
Gary says
So Paul believed in Adam, therefore Adam existed? I think Paul likely believed many things that most of us would not agree with today, including holding ancient views of astronomy and geology, but his belief in them does not then confer reality upon them. Paul was a man of his time, and God used him within the social, cultural and scientific milieu of that time. We shouldn’t conflate the message he brought, with his method of delivering it however. He was teaching that man is sinful and in need of a redeemer, who is then identified in Christ. In other words, he was delivering an inerrant, timeless spiritual truth from the standpoint of an ancient phenomenological perspective. Try shifting your focus to his main message, Adam is incidental to it.
steve hays says
Christianity is a revealed religion. If you reject the revelatory status of the Bible, then there’s no basis for you to believe Christianity is true.
You’re drawing an ad hoc distinction between an errant messenger and a partially inerrant message. Even then, you must further distinguish between the erroneous part of the message involving Adam, and the inerrant, timelessly true part of the message involving sinful man and Jesus Christ. Your distinction is arbitrary and unstable. Why think Paul was wrong about the historical Adam but right about the historical Christ? Adam is not “incidental” to the argument as Paul frames the argument.
You have a makeshift position isn’t consistently naturalistic, consistently supernaturalistic, or consistently exegetical. Your alternative is a logical mess. Either be a consistent secularist or be a consistent Christian.
steve hays says
“In other words, he was delivering an inerrant, timeless spiritual truth from the standpoint of an ancient phenomenological perspective.”
You don’t seem to grasp the concepts your using. To classify the existence of Adam as a “phenomenological” perspective is a category mistake. The phenomenological perspective is used to denote how the world appears to an earthbound observer. Descriptions using observational language. It has nothing to do with existential claims like the historicity of Adam.
Gary says
I thought the phenomenological perspective was clear, pardon me if I didn’t explain it well enough. Paul would have had an ancient cosmology, ancient geology, an ancient view of biology, and associated with those he would have had ancient views on the origins of both life and death. This provides the phenomenological perspective that explains Paul’s belief in a literal Adam.
You say that Christianity is a “revealed religion”, fine, but I object to your assertion that I reject the revelatory status of the bible, I do not. Also, it’s an entirely orthodox position to claim that God has provided two books of revelation – the bible as special revelation and creation itself as general revelation. But since they are both God’s revelation, they both contain truth that leads us to God, and they should not be in conflict with one another. You claim that I make arbitrary distinctions, when in fact you are the one implying the false dichotomy between the way we treat these two books.
steve hays says
“I thought the phenomenological perspective was clear, pardon me if I didn’t explain it well enough. Paul would have had an ancient cosmology, ancient geology, an ancient view of biology, and associated with those he would have had ancient views on the origins of both life and death.”
And the Bible has a designation for folks like you: “unbelievers”. You’ve given candid expression to your naked infidelity.
“This provides the phenomenological perspective that explains Paul’s belief in a literal Adam.”
You’re using “phenomenological” idiosyncratically, but I suppose that’s the least of your problems.
“You say that Christianity is a ‘revealed religion’, fine, but I object to your assertion that I reject the revelatory status of the bible, I do not.”
You openly rejected the revelatory status of Scripture when you said “Paul would have had an ancient cosmology, ancient geology, an ancient view of biology, and associated with those he would have had ancient views on the origins of both life and death.” Thanks for corroborating my allegation.
“Also, it’s an entirely orthodox position to claim that God has provided two books of revelation – the bible as special revelation and creation itself as general revelation.”
That hoary comparison is equivocal. The Bible is literally bookish. By contrast, nature is, at best, figuratively bookish. Nature is nonverbal communication. Nonpropositional revelation. So it’s quite disanalogous to the verbal revelation of Scripture.
“But since they are both God’s revelation, they both contain truth that leads us to God, and they should not be in conflict with one another. You claim that I make arbitrary distinctions, when in fact you are the one implying the false dichotomy between the way we treat these two books.”
Your position is self-contradictory since you assert that Scripture contradicts the natural record, as interpreted by science–which you accept unquestioningly.
C. M. Granger says
I thought Paul was a recipient of divine revelation, no?
I find it both interesting and troubling that some modern theologians (and Christians) seem to have no problem asserting with a straight face that the apostle Paul was mistaken with regard to some of his beliefs and teachings, but the enlightened purveyors of the gospel in these days are the ones who have it right.
Am I to understand that those who live today know more about divine truth than the apostles and prophets? Indeed, they lived during the wrong times. With ANE in one hand, and a modern science text in the other, oh how different the Scriptures would have been!
Ken Temple says
The apostle Paul is clearly comparing the one act of sin of the first man, Adam, with the one act of obedience of another one man, Jesus Christ.
“For just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, . . .
Romans 5:12
much more . . . by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.” Romans 5:15
. . . so also through the one act of righteousness . . . Romans 5:17, 18
even so through the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous . . . ” (Romans 5:19)
I Corinthians 15:22
“For as in Adam all die, so also all those who are in Christ, shall be made alive.”
1 Cor. 15:45
“The first man, Adam became a living soul, the last Adam became a life giving spirit.”
If you don’t have a real one man Adam, in history, with the effects of sin and spreading of death; it is clear by the author’s intention that one cannot have a one man Jesus Christ in history, with His life and one act of obedience and the effects of His grace and of faith in Him (Romans 5:17- “those who recieve the abundance of grace”) as resulting in eternal life.
Getting rid of a real Adam will lead to getting rid of a real and an affective Christ in procuring a real salvation of those who recieve Him as their Savior.
Gary says
Ken said, “Getting rid of a real Adam will lead to getting rid of a real and an affective Christ in procuring a real salvation of those who recieve Him as their Savior.”
I don’t intend to be disrespectful, but that’s just silly. We are all sinners in need of a saviour, and that holds true even without Adam. Are you then saying that Christ’s sacrifice is ineffective in saving us unless Adam was real. That nearly makes Adam into some sort of co-redeemer that God is dependant upon in order for his own sacrifice to be effective.
C. M. Granger says
Upon what basis do you assert a historical Jesus and deny a historical Adam? You learned about both in the Scriptures. Adam cannot be as easily discarded as you seem to think…
James F. McGrath says
Historical questions are answered using the tools of historical study. The fact that texts happen to be part of a collection that is given the status of Scripture by this or that religious body is irrelevant to the answering of historical questions. What matters is historical evidence. We have letters from someone who had met Jesus’ brother. We do not have something similar in the case of Adam. What we do have is a story the genre of which is made clear by the presence of a talking animal. But alas, some Christians have been indoctrinated that they are supposed to ignore everythign that they have learned about reading and literary genres when it comes to the Bible.
steve hays says
“Historical questions are answered using the tools of historical study. The fact that texts happen to be part of a collection that is given the status of Scripture by this or that religious body is irrelevant to the answering of historical questions. What matters is historical evidence.”
i) And McGrath has said in the past that methodological atheism is a guiding principle of historiography. So he will automatically discount a miraculous report as unhistorical.
ii) He also begs the question of whether Scripture is, itself, historical evidence.
iii) Notice, too, how he acts as though the Bible is no different than the Koran or Upanishads. It’s just a collection of ancient texts that happens to be given the status of Scripture by a religious community. Nothing inherent in the nature of the text itself to merit that status. Rather, that status is merely ascriptive and sociological. Something conferred on it from the outside. This just tells you that McGrath lacks a Christian view of Scripture.
“We have letters from someone who had met Jesus’ brother. We do not have something similar in the case of Adam.”
Notice how McGrath excludes revelation and inspiration. He has a purely secular outlook.
“What we do have is a story the genre of which is made clear by the presence of a talking animal.”
i) The genre of Gen 2-3 isn’t different from the genre of Pentateuchal narratives generally, many of which are characterized by supernatural incidents and agents.
ii) And why does he classify the “snake” as a talking animal? In the ancient Near East, “snakes” could be numinous beings. Supernatural beings.
“But alas, some Christians have been indoctrinated that they are supposed to ignore everythign that they have learned about reading and literary genres when it comes to the Bible.”
McGrath is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is imposing his secular perspective on Gen 2-3. But that confuses what he is prepared to believe with what the narrator was prepared to believe. The narrator doesn’t share his naturalistic worldview.
To take the genre into account means viewing the narrative on its own terms. Assuming the viewpoint of the narrator. That’s the polar opposite of what McGrath is doing. He views the world as a closed system.
C. M. Granger says
Since I believe in the supernatural, I’m not troubled by a few talking animals…whether the serpent in the garden of Eden or Balaam’s donkey. Once I accepted the first verse in the Bible, the rest was easy. However, the Scriptures are not like any other piece of literature. I imagine you would assert very little of the Bible as historically valid, therefore reducing divine revelation to a catalog of theological points. But the Christian faith is a historical faith, made up of actual events that took place in time and space. I don’t need a letter from someone who had met Adam’s fourth cousin in order to believe Adam was a real man. I only need the testimony of that Word which has Jesus’ imprimatur and which also testifies of itself that it is God-breathed.
James F. McGrath says
You had suggested that you were talking about history, not about what you find yourself able to believe. Historical study is an academic discipline which deals with evidence and what we can reasonably conclude based on the available evidence. As in a court of law, you may believe certain things about what happened, and you may be correct or incorrect, but the legal system will, if implemented according to the rules, result in a verdict based on the available evidence. It may or may not accurately reflect “what really happened” but it serves us better than an approach which is not focused on evidence and logical inference. History seeks to do the same. It cannot answer all of our questions, but it serves us better than other methods as a way of talking about the past and figuring out what we can deduce and with what degree of certainty.
steve hays says
Notice that McGrath is tacitly rigging the definition of history, by tacitly defining the historical method naturalistically. Yet that prejudges what did happen as well as what can happen. McGrath talks about the “available evidence,” but his “rules” filter out any evidence that doesn’t slip through his secular sieve. So his approach to reality is artificial. He doesn’t begin with reality. He doesn’t take the world as it comes to us. Rather, he begins with his “rules.” Rules that dictate in advance what reality is permitted to be like.
James F. McGrath says
Although as I have already said, I have no interest in interacting with Steve Hays again given his behavior on a previous encounter, I would point out for anyone else interested in discussing this that there is no movement, even on the part of ultra-conservative Christians, to redefine the judicial system to allow for miracles and the conclusion that God simply wanted someone dead. We set up methods that deal with the ordinary. That they cannot reach verdicts about the truly extraordinary is simply part of the method. A Christian can obviously believe in miracles and also practice historical study. What they cannot do is claim that historical tools and methods, which assess probability, can judge an inherently improbable event (a parting sea, a resurrection) to be probable. This should not be controversial.
steve hays says
“Although as I have already said, I have no interest in interacting with Steve Hays again given his behavior on a previous encounter…”
McGrath was hoping to get off a few free rounds attacking Christianity, then escape without a nick. He wants to be free to make tendentious assertions that go unchallenged. He resents having to defend his tendentious assertions.
“…I would point out for anyone else interested in discussing this that there is no movement, even on the part of ultra-conservative Christians, to redefine the judicial system to allow for miracles and the conclusion that God simply wanted someone dead.”
That’s McGrath’s canned example. But notice that although he pays lip-service to the “available evidence,” he has stimulative rules that preemptively exclude evidence of the miraculous. So even if all the evidence pointed to the fact that “God simply wanted someone dead,” McGrath would default a naturalistic explanation despite all the evidence to the contrary. His rules precommit him to a false naturalistic explanation over a true supernatural explanation every time.
“We set up methods that deal with the ordinary.”
“The ordinary” is a euphemism for McGrath’s ignorance or inexperience. What’s extraordinary for McGrath may be ordinary for a Christian exorcist (e.g. Kurt Koch, John Richards, Gabriele Amorth), or a paranormal researcher (e.g. Stephen Braude, Rupert Sheldrake, Mario Beauregard).
For instance, M. Scott Peck was a famous psychiatrist trained in secular medical science at Harvard University and Chase Western Reserve. But towards the end of his career he performed two exorcisms. He didn’t originally believe in demonic possession. It was the empirical evidence of two patients that forced him to make that diagnosis. That was the best explanation of the evidence. Cf. Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption.
“That they cannot reach verdicts about the truly extraordinary is simply part of the method.”
Notice how McGrath divorces methodology from truth. The method becomes an end in itself. It’s no longer about discovering the true explanation. For if the true explanation happens to be “extraordinary,” then the method discounts the true explanation out of hand.
McGrath uses methodology to mask his ulterior position. McGrath rejects Bible history, not on methodological grounds, but metaphysical grounds. He doesn’t think the world works in the way Scripture depicts. McGrath doesn’t believe those miracles happened. His metrology is based on his notion of reality.
“A Christian can obviously believe in miracles and also practice historical study. What they cannot do is claim that historical tools and methods, which assess probability, can judge an inherently improbable event (a parting sea, a resurrection) to be probable. This should not be controversial.”
That’s grossly simplistic and deeply confused. In what sense is a miracle like a resurrection or a parting sea “inherently improbable”?
i) It can be improbable in the sense that if nature is left to run its course unimpeded, then that event is highly unlikely (or even impossible).
ii) If, however, a personal agent (of sufficient power) deflects or redirects the course of nature, then that event is not improbable.
For instance, if Yahweh intends to part the sea, then that event is not improbable. To the contrary, the event is certain to happen under those conditions.
So is McGrath saying it’s “inherently improbable” that Yahweh intended to part the sea? How is McGrath in a position to know that?
steve hays says
McGrath’s definition of history is self-refuting. History is the past. History is whatever happened. If miracles occur, then historians had better make allowance for miracles. To say historians ought to disallow miracles is synonymous with saying historians ought to disallow the past.
Moreover, historical evidence for miraculous events isn’t in a class apart from historical evidence for other past events. Historians must rely on the same kinds of evidence.
It would only make sense for historians to exclude miracles from consideration if historians knew that miracles don’t happen. But that’s a metaphysical prejudgment. That can’t be settled by appeal to made-up rules.
McGrath needs to come clean. He lost his faith in Scripture. He’s moved from the far right end of the theological spectrum to the far left end of the theological spectrum. He disallows miracles, not because that commits some methodological faux pas, but because he doesn’t think they happen. So, if he were honest, that’s where he would engage the argument. But instead, he struggles to rationalize his apostasy by ad hoc definitions of history.
C. M. Granger says
Do we only believe something is historical based upon historical evidence? Is not the testimony of Christ and the Scriptures sufficient evidence?
Should we only believe the gospel because there is a high probability it is true based upon the historical evidence? Can you imagine the apostolic preaching of this message? “Repent and be baptized, each one of you, and most likely be saved from this wicked generation!”
It is clear from the text of the Bible that Adam was a historical figure. The biblical writers believed him to be so, nothing controversial about conceding this point. What you are forced to do if you hold a contrary position is either reinterpret the meaning of the text (e.g. Jesus, Paul, Luke, et al did not really mean Adam was a historical figure) or assert Jesus, Paul, etc. were wrong in their beliefs being subject to the conventions of their day (ala Peter Enns).
Both positions are untenable. They are tooth picks which cannot bear the weight of such a heavy paradigm shift.
James F. McGrath says
How do you determine that you have the testimony of Christ, or that the Scriptures you mow have are the ones that ancient Christians chose to be part of the canon, without asking historical questions and using historical tools to answer them?
C. M. Granger says
James,
I don’t use traditional methods to ultimately validate the historicity of a decidedly untraditional book.
Neither was the canon, as Dr. Kruger will attest, made such by the decision of early Christians. The canon is self authenticating, showing forth certain attributes which attest to it’s divine origin and therefore were recognized as Scripture by the church.
I know I have the testimony of Christ, and all the Scriptures God has given to the world because they’re neatly bound between the covers of my Protestant Bible, and have wide acceptance among the churches. Shall I trust the self attestation of Scripture and the general consensus of the churches, or the historical studies and attendant naturalistic methodologies of a band of skeptics?
The Christian faith, ultimately, is not an academic discipline.
Why do you have so much difficulty believing the Bible as we have received it? I thought the great Christian struggle was with sin, not with Scripture.
James F. McGrath says
Then presumably you have not read Augustine. Or for that matter any Muslim or Mormon who views their sacred text as self-authenticating.
It is studying the Bible that leads me to believe that doctrines such as inerrancy, as formulated in response to the impact of the Enlightenment, simply do not fit what the Bible shows itself to be. If a doctrine of Scripture does not fit what the Bible shows itself to be, and is clung to anyway, then the Bible is no longer the authority in that circumstance anyway, but rather the doctrine about the Bible takes primacy of place, being granted the authority to overrule evidence from the Bible itself. What is the point of such a position, which praises and undermines Scripture in the same breath?
steve hays says
Notice McGrath’s bait-n-switch. The Bible doesn’t “show itself” to be errant. This isn’t “evidence from the Bible itself.” Rather, McGrath is imputing mistakes to Scripture based on his faith in some external sources of information, which he compares to Scripture. He applies criteria extrinsic to Scripture to Scripture. So he’s judging Scripture from the outside, not the inside. He disregards the self-witness of Scripture.
steve hays says
“Or for that matter any Muslim or Mormon who views their sacred text as self-authenticating.”
That comparison is confused on multiple grounds:
i) A document “viewed” as self-authenticating is not equivalent to a self-authenticating document.
To take a comparison, suppose two students ask to be excused from class due to headaches. One student actually has a headache. And her experience is self-authenticating. She feels pained in her head. That’s not something she can be mistaken about.
The other student feigns a headache to cut class. She falsely claims to have a headache.
These are both self-authenticating claims, but they are hardly equivalent. The fact that a claim to self-authentication may be bogus doesn’t negate genuine cases of self-authentication.
ii) By the same token, McGrath fails to distinguish between different levels of justification. If I have a headache, I’m justified in believing I have a headache. That may not be sufficient justification for you to believe that I have a headache, since you’re not privy to my experience. Likewise, the self-authenticating character of the Bible may be sufficient for defensive apologetics even if it’s insufficient for offensive apologetics. It can be adequate for Christians, even if it’s unpersuasive to an outsider.
iii) Muhammad falsified his own claims to be a prophet when he appealed to the Bible to validate his message.
iv) Joseph Smith falsified his own claims to be a prophet when he claimed to translate an Egyptian document into English, and cited an Egyptologist who supposedly vouched for his translation. Well, we have the Egyptian document, which we can compare with Smith’s alleged translation. We also have a letter from the Egyptologist disowning Smith.
C. M. Granger says
“What is the point of such a position, which praises and undermines Scripture in the same breath?”
That’s funny, that’s what I think about your position.
I have read Augustine, although not extensively, so you will have to be more specific.
I’m not concerned what the adherents of false religions believe about their religious texts. All false religions have internal inconsistencies which are self-defeating.
You will need to argue for your conclusion that “the doctrine of Scripture does not fit what the Bible shows itself to be”. Do you really wish to assert that by studying God’s revelation of Himself to man you discovered an error-riddled catalog of theological points with a smattering of historical fragments? This is high praise for Scripture indeed.
James F. McGrath says
Harmonization is always possible, if one insists that the texts cannot contradict one another. Harmonizing the Bible in this way involves treating the Bible like just another collection of religious texts, since Muslims and Hindus and Mormons all harmonize discrepancies and contradictions in precisely the same way.
steve hays says
What makes McGrath imagine that Hindus operate with a concept of plenary verbal inspiration?
Keep in mind that Islam and Mormonism are Judeo-Christian heresies. Naturally they’re imitative. So what?
C. M. Granger says
James,
The Bible has an internal consistency which other religious texts do not. If we take any of your examples, they contain defeaters within their own premises.
There is also the testimony of the Holy Spirit within the heart of the believer, which has not been mentioned, but is vitally important. Has this not been your experience? Or does the Spirit only testify to the texts which pass historical analysis?
James F. McGrath says
Again, you either are not being entirely honest about the Bible, or are genuinely unaware that people in other religious traditions say the same thing about their sacred texts.
The life-changing experience that I had of being born again doesn’t allow me to therefore declare that everything in a collection of texts is inerrant. How precisely do you envisage the logic that proceeds from the one to the other? Can fallible human beings not point people to a relationship with God?
C. M. Granger says
I’m not sure what you mean by “not being entirely honest about the Bible”. Why would I be anything but entirely honest about the Bible? Do you think it necessary to be deceitful in order to defend inerrancy? Really?
I’m quite aware of what people from false religions *say* about their religious texts, they can *say* anything they like. However, there is a difference between saying your sacred writings are inspired and inerrant, and proving they are. False religions are internally inconsistent and self-defeating. For example, the Koran claims that Allah cannot be revealed in human language. If that is true, then the Koran cannot be what it claims to be, the revelation of Allah. The Book of Mormon asserts the divine inspiration of the Bible. If that is true, the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be because it blatantly contradicts the Scriptures.
Fallible human beings need to point people to a relationship with the God revealed in Scripture. He’s the only true God. Otherwise, they are left believing in a god of their own imagination. I didn’t know it was such a leap of logic to conclude that someone who is born again should not find it difficult to embrace the infallibility and inerrancy of God’s word. After all, Jesus said man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which falls from the mouth of God. How can this statement be true if we don’t know what the word of God is, except perhaps through the fallible tool historical analysis? Has God left us with only crumbs and not bread?
James F. McGrath says
Some of us think that what fallible human beings need most is to become mature, responsible, discerning individuals, and that if God had given what fundamentalists claim God gave, that would have been crumbs rather than bread.
steve hays says
Of course, that raises the question of what God McGrath believes in. Clearly not the God of Biblical theism.
C. M. Granger says
James,
I agree that God wants us to be mature, discerning, and responsible individuals, all of which has nothing to do with rejecting a majority of Scripture…
Ken Temple says
It is not silly –
The Greek text is clear in all those texts and contexts in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15 – “just as (hosper- ‘ωσπερ = “just as”, hos – ‘ως “as”) one man” (Adam) disobeyed, resulting in sin and death spreading to all men;
“much more” (πολλω μαλλον) and “so also” (houtos = ‘ουτως ) (the one man (Jesus) obeyed, resulting in grace and salvation for those who receive Him. The comparision is clear.
See also, John R. W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8, Baker Books, 1966, 1987, page 24:
“It is fashionable nowadays to regard the story of Adam and Eve as “myth”, not history. But the Scripture itself will not allow us to do this. . . . the Biblical Christian accepts Adam and Eve as historical . . . because of New Testament theology. In Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49 the apostle draws an analogy between Adam and Christ which depends for tis valitdity on the historicity of both. . . the whole argument is built on two historical acts – the self-willed disobedience of Adam and the self-sacrificing obedience of Christ.”
Gary says
Well then we’ve reached an impasse. We both think each other wrong, primarily because we have different ways of reading scripture and different degrees of confidence in in the testimony of creation as it is revealed through scientific study, and how these two books of revelation should be interpreted alongside each other. And furthermore, I doubt that either of us will change our opinion based simply upon a quick exchange with strangers on an internet forum. Nevertheless, even though Steve has written me off as an unbeliever and an infidel, I still consider you brothers in Christ and wish you all the best as you continue to serve Him where ever He has called you to do so. I’m sure that the day will come when we both discover we have been wrong about many things, but still God’s grace will prevail.
Peace.
Gary
Chris LeDuc says
James F McGrath said: “..excuse me if I decide that you are not the sort of person I care to interact with, and have the level of the conversation plummet.”
Oh the irony! It’s almost palpable. I thought this thread was going to be good with almost 50 comments only to see that they’re mostly his or relating to what he said….
Gary says
Steve said, “He also begs the question of whether Scripture is, itself, historical evidence”.
No, if you re-read his comment you’ll see he clearly accepts the historical portions of scripture as history. However he is able to distinguish between genres, unlike you.
Steve opined, “This just tells you that McGrath lacks a Christian view of Scripture.”.
No again, it only tells me that he lacks your view of scripture, and who are you to decide what is the correct “Christian view” of scripture.
He also spewed, “Notice how McGrath excludes revelation and inspiration.”
Wrong again, his views on these things may differ from yours, but I didn’t see him reject them anywhere.
Steve, would it kill you to at least try grasp the concept that there may be other ways to read and interpret various portions of the bible other than your own simplistic way of doing it, and yet still remain within the pale of orthodox Christianity? I don’t expect you to agree with them, but are you able to even acknowledge the fact?
steve hays says
“No, if you re-read his comment you’ll see he clearly accepts the historical portions of scripture as history.”
He only accepts the “historical portions” of Scripture to the extent that have critics have sterilized the accounts of their miraculous contaminants. He only accepts secularized editions of Bible history.
“However he is able to distinguish between genres, unlike you.”
His genre distinction is artificially imposed from the outside. He determines genre by whether the account contains supernatural elements. That mirrors his modernism.
And the “genre” of Gen 2-3 isn’t essentially different from the genre of the Gospels and Acts. These contain the same offending elements that he disdains in Gen 2-3. They narrate angels, demons, demoniacs, ghosts, nature miracles, telepathy, levitation, premonitory dreams, &c.
“No again, it only tells me that he lacks your view of scripture, and who are you to decide what is the correct ‘Christian view’ of scripture.”
No, it’s a choice between accepting or rejecting the Scriptural view of Scripture.
“Wrong again, his views on these things may differ from yours, but I didn’t see him reject them anywhere.”
You’re naive and easily duped.
“Steve, would it kill you to at least try grasp the concept that there may be other ways to read and interpret various portions of the bible other than your own simplistic way of doing it, and yet still remain within the pale of orthodox Christianity?”
You’re dissembling. By your own admission, the question at issue isn’t the interpretation of Scripture, but the veracity of Scripture.
Your position is outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. Your position (as well as McGrath’s) is squarely in the historic tradition of infidelity, viz. Anthony Collins, Jean LeClerc, Samuel Clarke.
Throughout the Bible, disbelieving God’s spokesmen is the acid test of apostasy and infidelity. You’d been excommunicated from the NT church. Your attitude repristinates the attitude of the Exodus generation, which was condemned to pine away in the wilderness through persistent disbelief in anything too far out of the ordinary to comport with their reflexive naturalism.
“I don’t expect you to agree with them, but are you able to even acknowledge the fact?”
I acknowledge that you’re self-deceived.
Gary says
Even though the O.P. used the historical Adam as the touch-point, it’s been pretty clear from the outset that the real subject is about how we treat the bible, and in that regard I think we need to have a bit more humility when we approach scripture. John tells us in 20:31 that he has written these things so that we might believe; so his gospel at least isn’t a highly scientific, objective, modernist form of history, it is written as a persuasive narrative to make a very subjective point, and I think the same can be said for much, (not all), of the bible.
The idea of incarnation is very important. God became flesh and walked among us. One thing He is saying to us in doing so is that who we are and how we live is important to Him, and He wants to work all things within and through His creation in that incarnational model. The scriptures bear this out as well. They did not drop out of the sky fully formed and written in God’s own hand, He moved men to write, but to do so within their own cultural and historical context and understanding of God. So the bible itself is a very human book containing a progressive understanding of God, to the point that we even see Jesus reshaping people’s views of God that they had developed from Hebrew scripture. The bible should point us to God, but should not be equated with Him.
steve hays says
“I think we need to have a bit more humility when we approach scripture.”
That advice is always a one-way street. You think the opposing side needs to be more humble.
“The idea of incarnation is very important. God became flesh and walked among us. One thing He is saying to us in doing so is that who we are and how we live is important to Him, and He wants to work all things within and through His creation in that incarnational model. The scriptures bear this out as well.”
i) The Bible never uses an incarnational analogy for inspiration. You’re submitting an artificial analogy (which you cribbed from Enns) for the self-witness of Scripture.
ii) And even if we play along with that analogy, unless you subscribe to the Kenotic heresy, Jesus was an infallible teacher. So, by parity of argument, Scripture is infallible.
“They did not drop out of the sky fully formed and written in God’s own hand, He moved men to write, but to do so within their own cultural and historical context and understanding of God.”
i) You’re burning a straw man. You seem to be ignorant of the organic theory of inspiration, championed by Warfield, which is entirely consonant with inerrancy. Inspiration has a providential dimension.
ii) You also act as though God has to play the hand that history dealt him. But God is behind the cultural conditioning of the Bible writers. He made them what they are. He prepared them for the task.
iii) Moreover, Scripture is often countercultural. Have you never noticed that?
“So the bible itself is a very human book containing a progressive understanding of God, to the point that we even see Jesus reshaping people’s views of God that they had developed from Hebrew scripture.”
i) Progressive revelation doesn’t mean progression from error to truth.
ii) Jesus never corrected OT history or OT theism.
iii) The veracity of the OT is foundational to the Messianic claims of Jesus.
“The bible should point us to God, but should not be equated with Him.”
Once again, you’re burning a straw man. That said:
i) Systematic theology has a category of communicable attributes. The Bible exemplifies some of God’s communicable attributes.
ii) In addition, just as apostles wrote letters in lieu of their personal presence, the Bible is God’s stand-in for his personal presence. The written word takes the place of the spoken word. But it carries the full authority of the original speaker.
Gary says
“The Bible never uses an incarnational analogy for inspiration.”
So what, that doesn’t invalidate the idea. “… (which you cribbed from Enns)” I consider that pretty good company and do admit to being a casual follower of some of his stuff, but I haven’t read any of his books and don’t know that I’ve ever seen this from him, it’s actually come from some conversations I had with my pastor a couple of years ago.
I know that nobody literally believes the bible dropped out of the sky, that was hyperbole, but functionally we nearly treat it that way by the artificial constraints we place around the ideas of inspiration and inerrancy.
steve hays says
[Gary] “I consider that pretty good company and do admit to being a casual follower of some of his stuff, but I haven’t read any of his books and don’t know that I’ve ever seen this from him, it’s actually come from some conversations I had with my pastor a couple of years ago.”
Let’s see: you told me, in a 9/8/13 comment, that:
“The idea of incarnation is very important. God became flesh and walked among us. One thing He is saying to us in doing so is that who we are and how we live is important to Him, and He wants to work all things within and through His creation in that incarnational model. The scriptures bear this out as well. They did not drop out of the sky fully formed and written in God’s own hand, He moved men to write, but to do so within their own cultural and historical context and understanding of God. So the bible itself is a very human book containing a progressive understanding of God, to the point that we even see Jesus reshaping people’s views of God that they had developed from Hebrew scripture.”
And Peter Enns, in a 9/5/13 post, just happened to say:
“…the Bible–even where it talks about God–is not a heavenly tablet dropped from heaven, but a relentlessly contextual collection of ancient literature that takes wisdom and patience to handle well.God is bigger than the Bible–and frankly, I see Jesus in the Gospels already sounding that note when he began reshaping common views of God based on Israel’s traditions, but I digress” (“God is bigger than the Bible”).
What an amazing coincidence! If I didn’t know better, I’d almost suspect you are more than a casual follower of his stuff.
Gary says
Well this is in danger of sidetracking things way too much, but just to set your mind at ease Steve, a) I’ve already said I’m a casual follower of Enns, and what that means is that I do check out his blog once or twice a month. If you think that make me something more than that then that’s your business. b) I’ve used the bit of hyperbole that you got so excited about before I ever saw it on Pete’s blog, and I doubt it’s original to him either, but you are correct that I read his blog post in the morning and recalled that bit about the word dropping out of the sky to us fully developed when I posted here. c) you originally made reference to the incarnational model as coming from Enns. It didn’t. He may well hold to it, I don’t know, but I already told you where I got it from.
In any case, none of that matters because it doesn’t have anything to do with the issue at hand. Your insistence upon a historical Adam is still rooted in nothing other than your misunderstanding of Genesis and has absolutely no scientific validity whatsoever.
steve hays says
You’re confounding what Genesis means with what you’re prepared to believe. The fact that you deny the historicity of Adam doesn’t mean the narrator shares your outlook. That’s not a question of misunderstanding Genesis. By your own admission, you deny the historicity of Adam on scientific grounds. You then try to harmonize that denial with your token Christianity by pretending that this is just a question of interpretation. You have one foot in atheism and another foot in the church.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Gary, Steve,
I posted this earlier to Mike and James.
It still comes down to who do we “believe” to be the FINAL authority. It is common to say in most doctrinal statements that “The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice” with some variation thereof. But this statement is really incorrect for it places a dichotomy between faith and practice (theological doctrine and behavior) and between what is historical and scientific. The doctrine of the Bible should read: “The Bible is the sole and final authority on ALL that it TEACHES not just faith and practice. There is the notion then that faith is not only subjective, BUT OBJECTIVE. This is because faith and knowledge are both intuitive, intellectual and experiential. The Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus is based, in part, on the issue of the historical Adam both in the Creation, creation of Adam, Eve and the Sin of Adam.
I know this is late on commenting, but probably it would be good to read the latest post by Jared Oliphant, http://www.reformation21.org/articles/our-makebelieve-parents-when-adam-becomes-more-fiction-than-fact.php, “Our Make-Believe Parents: When Adam Becomes More Fiction than Fact” which follows:
In Sunday School rooms across a wide spectrum of churches, you will find Bible storybooks that, around page one, display pictures of Adam and Eve, with illustrators using their best judgment on whether to use well-placed leaves, strategic cropping, or selective poses appropriately to censor the reality of Adam and Eve’s nakedness. It’s the beginning of our story, and the beginning is sometimes as important as the end. But that reality, and more importantly our first parents’ existence, has been and continues to be challenged and denied by some voices even within the church.
The Problem
Mainstream natural science – human genetics, DNA coding, anthropological archeology, etc. – has been studying the origins of man for some time and it seems there is now a consensus: we can no longer believe that humanity has descended from an original pair of human beings. The evidence for original human parents, according to some, is wholly lacking and, in fact, points positively to a community of sub-human species hundreds of thousands of years ago. It is from this kind of community, the argument goes, that humans have evolved. As one Old Testament scholar puts it, “The scientific evidence we have for human origins and the literary evidence we have for the nature of ancient stories of origins are so overwhelmingly persuasive that belief in a first human [Adam], such as Paul understood him, is not a viable option.” (1)
By “historical Adam” we mean this: if there had been surveillance footage of the garden of Eden, it would have captured dust from the earth in motion, taking the form and shape of the first male human being. It would have captured a single set of footprints all over the garden and, at some point, would have captured two sets of human footprints and audio of a conversation between a couple and a serpent (among other things).
The church is faced with a range of possible responses to the scientific challenge. In the current theological climate, “science” plays the part of the cool kid, with some on the outside displaying a desperation for wanting to be in that popular inner circle, while also illustrating the difference between melodramatic (denying the existence of a historical Adam) and dramatic (being alarmed at the latest scientific challenge to Scripture).
On the other hand, those tempted to dismiss natural science as a discipline should know that is not an option, mainly because it is next to impossible, or at least is pragmatically inconsistent. Many of the same scientific laws and methodology that produce findings on genetics are also responsible for treatments of cancer, data on distant galaxies, medicinal and surgical advances for premature babies, and a host of products and technologies we consume and enjoy every day.
Prioritizing select scientific findings is often self-labeled as “progressive,” though that term prematurely assumes one’s view is not only correct, but is advanced beyond the opposing view. When the latest scientific findings are positioned as advances in both science and in our theological understanding of Scripture, concern inevitably grows over whether believers will be left behind if we opt to ignore recent conclusive evidence. After all, what is the point in studying Scripture if we shut out theological progress, especially when shutting out that progress leaves Christians embarrassed in the face of the scientific community and, therefore, the broader culture at large?
The Question of Authority
Christians who are aware of the historical Adam discussion now find themselves in an unsettling game of Choose Your Authority: Scientific/literary evidence vs. Scripture. Fortunately, Scripture itself has something to say about this.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:16-21)
Peter is recalling one of the most earth-shattering experiences from his walk with Jesus when he was with him on the Mount of Transfiguration (see Matt. 17:1-13). In recounting the event, Peter is concerned to tell us that he was an eyewitness (v. 16) and heard God the Father’s voice from heaven (v. 18). Immediately after mentioning this historical event, with what initially seems like a jarring segue into describing the process of divine inspiration, Peter tells us that Scripture is not produced from man’s interpretation or will (v. 20-21) but by God himself through the Spirit. Why? The historicity of the events of Jesus’ life are inseparably tied to Scripture’s truthfulness.
The Apostle Paul evidences the same kind of thinking in two important passages for our purposes:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)
Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Justas we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor. 15: 45-49)
Paul is clear that the gospel message is objective. The truth and objectivity of the gospel are characteristics of the message itself rather than the human agent delivering the message. The truth of the gospel does not change, not even if one who is in authority, including Paul himself or even an angel, decides to veer from the more ultimate authority of Scripture and preach what is contrary. And what does Paul say the gospel is? It is the death and resurrection of Christ according to Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3f), a historical event that had eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Paul pairs this gospel event in history with Adam becoming a living being (v. 45), formed from the physical (psuchikos in the original) earth and dust (v. 47-48), and passing his dusty image to all of humanity (v. 49). Paul assumes and argues for the historicity and historical implications of Adam and the events surrounding his life, inseparably linking and contrasting him to the historical existence of Christ and the events surrounding his life.
Returning to Peter, he writes,
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Pet. 3:1-7)
Generations of Christians have faced the scientific challenge/assumption that the “laws” of nature necessarily never bend. Even in the first century, though, Peter knew the challenge would be posed to the early church: the promise of Christ’s second coming looks unlikely. Laws of nature have not deviated (v. 4). Peter answers this charge by reminding his readers that it is God’s word that caused the heavens and earth to exist in the first place and his word that caused a deluge over the whole earth with the Flood. That same word will bring an end to the present age when Christ returns at a point in human history, Peter says. God’s word not only causes historical events to occur, but also has authority to cause events that deviate from the otherwise regular pattern and laws of nature.
In denying a historical Adam, what kind of historical protection is offered for biblical passages that include events like the virgin birth of Christ, or events in the Old Testament like Balaam’s talking donkey (Num. 22:22f)? Where is the scientific evidence for the burning bush or the parting of the Red Sea? Under what we could term “theological scientism,” there are a number of alarming consequences.
First, divine authorship offers no guarantee of truth. If we allow that Paul is simply wrong on the historicity of Adam, it does us no good to quarantine Paul’s mistake to his historical belief, while arbitrarily affirming the truthfulness of Paul’s “theological beliefs” recorded in Scripture.
Second, divine authorship carries no more authorial weight than mainstream scientific conclusions. If scientific consensus determines which events are historical, the possibility of Christ (or Lazarus, for that matter) truly dying and truly being raised to life is denied before the question can be raised (no pun intended). The church is put in the position of being dependent on the scientific community to inform us about which portions of Scripture, if any, are valid.
The words of the writer of Ecclesiastes are perennially wise: “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc. 1:9). As long as science and theology remain disciplines, challenges to Christian belief will appear from pockets of science. The same brand of science that has no room for a historical Adam has no room for a virgin birth. Or miracles. Or bodily resurrection. Or ascension. Some current theologians seem to exhibit selective amnesia, forgetting that this brand of liberalism that denies the supernatural and subordinates Scripture to particular streams within science has already been ably answered in the church.
Those searching for confidence in Scripture under this method of interpretation will be left wanting. The half-hearted explanations given for why, in the face of denying a historical Adam, we should still trust Scripture sound like the hazy non-logic of a college student discovering Zen – there are abundant references not to truth but a “conversation,” along with an unwavering certainty on some things and suspicion of others’ certainty about anything. Under the theological accommodation of scientism, though Paul got this one wrong, and the Chronicler (1 Chr. 1:1), and Hosea (Hos. 6:7), and Luke (Lk. 3:38), and Jude (Jude 1:14), and Jesus (Mark 10:6-9), we are still assured that somehow Scripture is still trustworthy and inspired. We are still assured that God’s character remains intact.
Fortunately, there are Christians who do not reject science as a discipline but instead use it to God’s glory in demonstrating the truth about his world. They are looking at the same scientific data regarding the origins of life and coming to orthodox conclusions in ways that do justice to the appropriate parameters and integrity of the scientific disciplines. If anything positive emerges from the recent scientific challenges, it may be prompting believers to defend afresh God’s truth with Scripture in hand. Such challenges can be used by God to speak the truth of his word into the current scientific context. The question we hear from those who deny what is expressly set in Scripture is the same question asked in Gen. 3:1, “Did God actually say there was an Adam?”
For some helpful resources on digging deeper into this issue, here is one place to start: “Resources on the Historical Adam.”
Notes:
1. Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Bazos Press, 2012), 122.
steve hays says
“So the bible itself is a very human book containing a progressive understanding of God, to the point that we even see Jesus reshaping people’s views of God that they had developed from Hebrew scripture.”
i) If you’re alluding to Christ’s position on divorce, remarriage, and the Sabbath, he appeals to other parts of the OT to warrant his position. So there’s no progression. Indeed, he often appeals to the Pentateuch. So he ends where Scripture begins.
If you’re alluding to the six antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:21-48), many commentators think he’s alluding to the oral Torah rather than the Mosaic law. If so, there’s no progression. That interpretation would also be consistent with his programatic reaffirmation of OT ethics (Mt 5:17-19).
ii) In some respects the new covenant supersedes the Mosaic covenant, but that doesn’t involve an altered view of God.
Gary says
Steve,
“The fact that you deny the historicity of Adam doesn’t mean the narrator shares your outlook.” Nor does the fact that you believe in the historicity of Adam mean the narrator shares your views either, so that works both ways.
You seem to have it all figured out and are very sure of yourself, so let me ask you how you do it. Geneticists and biologists have ruled out the possibility of a single pair of ancestors, so how do you harmonize those facts with your token christianity?
btw, the commenting on this site is odd, it gets to a certain level and then I can’t reply but have to start a new comment.
C. M. Granger says
I find it interesting that the automatic presumption is that geneticists and biologists (typically methodological naturalists) are correct and the standard by which supernatural truth claims are judged. Then divine revelation is interpreted in light of current scientific consensus. You seem to have it all figured out and are very sure of yourself, how do you do it?
Gary says
Actually, I don’t feel as though I have it all figured out at all.
I’ve spent the vast majority of my life with very similar opinions to yours. I believed that the world was made by God about 7-10 thousand years ago and that Adam and Eve were created in a special garden as a de novo creation by Him and fell into sin by eating the fruit, thereby initiating a fll and introducing death and corruption into the world, etc. But I simply can’t sustain that intellectually anymore. I’m not fully convinced that I now know how to interpret Genesis, but I am fairly convinced that that old way is incorrect.
What I am convinced of quite firmly is that the bible is God’s written word to us and regardless of all the talk about multiple editors and post-exilic revisionism, it is in some way exactly what He wants us to have today. I’m also convinced that there is much we can learn from the careful, scientific study of creation, and very often with a great deal of confidence. Sometimes these two ways of knowing appear to conflict with one another, and what do you do then? Your way – my English translation of this ancient text says X, so X it is no matter what careful observation of the world around us points to. That just doesn’t quite work for me anymore, which is why I continue to search.
I might add that I don’t consider the existence of Adam a supernatural truth; he either existed as an actual historical person within nature or he didn’t.
C. M. Granger says
Gary,
Without commenting on the simplistic way you summarized what you consider to be the fundamentalist position, divine revelation trumps empirical observation every time. If not, why are you bothering with divine revelation? How is it that natural revelation takes precedence?
The existence of Adam was within God’s creation (nature) as a historical person, but the creation of Adam is a supernatural event. Why are you judging a supernatural event (creation ex nihilo) by a naturalistic scientific method? Can special creation be evaluated inductively this way?
Gary says
Perhaps I over-simplified the fundamentalist position a bit, there may be more nuance to it than that, but that’s pretty much where it boils down to in my mind. As for divine revelation, (by which I presume you mean the bible), trumping empirical observation, I’m not sure I agree. Firstly, I consider what you call natural revelation to be divine revelation, as creation is afterall from God. Hence, they should comport with one another, and when the plain text reading of the bible appears to conflict with observed reality, then it only makes sense to question whether or not that reading of the bible is correct. I don’t know that natural revelation takes precedence, but it is still part of God’s revelation and therefore contains God’s truth, so at the very least, it should help inform us as to how to interpret the bible correctly.
C. M. Granger says
Gary,
If divine revelation must always comport with what we observe, then the Resurrection cannot be true, neither can miracles, etc. You therefore drain Christianity of it’s supernatural elements and have something other than the faith revealed in Scripture.
steve hays says
“Nor does the fact that you believe in the historicity of Adam mean the narrator shares your views either, so that works both ways.”
Gary, since you’re so confused, let’s try to deal with one issue at a time, beginning with the hermeneutical issue. I’ll get around to the scientific issue later.
i) When you raise modern scientific objections to the historicity of Adam, by definition you’re assuming a viewpoint at odds with the viewpoint of the narrator. It would be utterly anachronistic for you to imagine that the narrator denied the historicity of Adam because some modern biologists and geneticists deny the historicity of Adam. That superimposes an alien outlook onto the ancient text.
ii) If you think the Pentateuchal narrator viewed Adam as a fictional character, then, in logical consistency, you must believe the Pentateuchal narrator viewed Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Terah, Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Jethro, Moses, Miriam, Pharaoh, Caleb, Joshua, &c., as fictional characters.
“You seem to have it all figured out and are very sure of yourself, so let me ask you how you do it. Geneticists and biologists have ruled out the possibility of a single pair of ancestors, so how do you harmonize those facts with your token christianity?”
Gary, believing the Bible isn’t token Christianity. That’s normative Christianity. According to Scripture, there are two kinds of people: believers and unbelievers. Those who live by faith and those who live by sight. The heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 represent the former while the wilderness generation in Heb 3-4 represents the latter.
When you disbelieve Bible history, you’re joining the ranks of the faithless rather than the faithful. If you’re going to attack a Christian for believing the Bible, at least have the decency to become an atheist before doing so. As it stands, your double-minded attitude is a pitiful intellectual compromise. It’s not consistently Christian or consistently secular.
Let’s compare your stopgap position with James Barr, who had a clearer understanding of the alternatives, and was far more honest about the consequences. He’s discussing the genealogies, but it raises the same hermeneutical issues:
“But we have to be aware of the difference between intention and historical truth. All discussion of this matter has been bedevilled by the assertion that the chronological data of the Bible, and especially those of the earlier chapters of Genesis, are ‘not to be taken literally’. According to this argument, when we read that Methuselah lived to the high age of 969 years, we are to suppose that the writer did not mean 969 years but something different. Now I submit that this is obviously false. The biblical writers worked seriously on these figures, and they meant 969 years for Methuselah: that was what was special about him, he was not anything else of note: they meant 969 years for him, just as they meant 120 years for the life of Moses (Deut. 34.7) and just as they meant two years after the earthquake in Amos 1.1.
“We have to distinguish between literal intention and historical, factual truth. The figures are not, to us, historically, scientifically or factually true, but they were literally intended. A year to them was the same period as it still is to us. The figures do not correspond with actual fact, that is, they or some of them are legendary or mythical in character, but the biblical writers in overwhelming probability did think that they corresponded to actual fact. When, in modern times, people began to say that these passages were ‘not to be taken literally’, this was really a cowardly expedient which enabled them to avoid saying that, though they were literally intended, they were not literally true. They were literally intended: they were chronological statements of numbers of years and made no sense otherwise.
“Or, to put it in another way, we often say that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, and from our point of view that is of course the case; but from the point of view of the biblical writers and their public, as far as concerns the chronological data, it was intended as scientifically true, and the dates and figures do not have any use or any meaning if they were not so intended.
“The Bible reader is not bound to accept the chronology. But this means that God gave us in writing a quite misleading and erroneous chronology. Well, people may say, that doesn’t matter, for chronology is not important for religion. But this is exactly the ‘liberal’ attitude to historical narratives: it does not matter for religion whether they are historically true or not. Unfortunately, the Old Testament makes it clear that, for it, chronology was important for religion, and the chronology was there very precisely because chronology did matter for religion and indeed was a way of communicating something that was essential for the faith of the Hebrews in biblical times.
James Barr, Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?
Barr is a consistent unbeliever. At least he let’s the Bible speak for itself.
Gary says
I don’t remember saying I was confused; glad you cleared that up for me.
Your first point, while technically true, misses the point. It’s true that I can look to modern science and question the historicity of Adam, but obviously the authors of Genesis didn’t have this information. That doesn’t mean they thought they were presenting literal history though, they may have believed they were but not necessarily. They were story tellers, recording their culture’s beliefs about beginnings.
As for your second point, it’s entirely possible that some of those characters were more mythical than real. I can live with that and still benefit from the text.
After that you get back into a bunch of name calling and nonsense that you enjoy so much. Since you like all of the highfalutin philosophical terminology so much, why don’t you go look up ad hominem.
The lengthy James Barr quote was interesting, thanks for that. I don’t know anything about James Barr, why do you call him an unbeliever?
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“Your first point, while technically true, misses the point. It’s true that I can look to modern science and question the historicity of Adam, but obviously the authors of Genesis didn’t have this information. That doesn’t mean they thought they were presenting literal history though, they may have believed they were but not necessarily. They were story tellers, recording their culture’s beliefs about beginnings.”
1. Do you have any relevant credentials in any of the modern sciences in question? If not, then how are you able to evaluate the science? You’re just taking it on authority. But even the authorities debate the authorities. Just take a look at Jerry Coyne’s heated debates with his University of Chicago colleague James Shapiro over fundamental aspects of modern evolutionary theory.
2. Do you have any relevant credentials in any of the disciplines regarding the scholastic study of Christianity and the Bible? If not, then, according to your own words, we shouldn’t take anything you say too seriously if at all. If so, it’s not as if your argument that the “authors” (plural) of Genesis were primarily “story tellers, recording their culture’s beliefs about beginnings” hasn’t already been answered by other scholars.
“As for your second point, it’s entirely possible that some of those characters were more mythical than real. I can live with that and still benefit from the text.”
If Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, and all the rest are “more mythical than real,” then, yes, you’re outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. When Jesus was on the Mount of Transfiguration, I guess he was talking to a “more mythical than real” figure.
What sort of “benefit” could you receive from from the text that you couldn’t receive from other “more mythical than real” texts like the Book of Mormon? Or the Hindu Vedas? Or the Norse sagas? And so on and so forth.
“After that you get back into a bunch of name calling and nonsense that you enjoy so much. Since you like all of the highfalutin philosophical terminology so much, why don’t you go look up ad hominem.”
As far as ad hominem goes, don’t pretend you haven’t engaged in ad hominem. For example, you’ve said all the comments here were “depressing,” that another commenter’s comment was “just silly,” you’ve characterized Steve as “spew[ing]” comments, that Steve’s reading and interpretion of the Bible is “simplistic,” that his Christianity is “token,” etc.
Gary says
I’ll address your first point in your other response to me because it isn’t relevant here. As for my credentials regarding scholarly study of Christianity, I have none, and I agree with your conclusion that there’s absolutely no reason you or anyone else should take anything I say seriously. Of course, the same can be said for the vast majority of the population, and yet we all have to make up our own minds on these things in some way. So my opinions are just that, my opinions – you are free to disagree, and obviously do.
As for the other characters, you’re right, Jesus was speaking with real people, and other than Adam and Eve in that list, I think there is good reason to believe that these characters in the bible were based on actual persons.
The last bit is once again heading us off the rails, but …
1. Saying the comments thread was depressing is not (I don’t think) an ad hominem attack. Who was it aimed at? I didn’t really expound on it at the time, but what I found depressing was not the subject matter, because I think it is good that Christians discuss these things among themselves, and it doesn’t bother me that some people still hold to a historical Adam and want to defend that. What I found depressing was the type of discourse I saw showing up with accusations of lying and declarations that someone can’t possibly be a real Christian if they think the way they do. It’s all just a bit sad.
2. The “silly” comment to another poster was in reference to the particular bit of logic,and was not meant to be directed towards the commenter personally. I’ve never studied philosophy, (as you can likely tell), so I’m not sure if that counts as a personal attack or not, but it wasn’t intended to be.
3. The “spewing” remark was poorly conceived and I would retract the entire post if I could, but I can’t. All the same, beyond being rude I wonder if it qualifies as a person attack. I suppose you could read it as though I was characterizing him as a spewer.
4. “Simplistic” was not used in the sense of “you are a naive simpleton to think that way”, but in the sense of you’ve selected to use the least complex level possible to read the text. I can see how it could be read either way though. Nevertheless, I see Steve has thrown out the same word at another poster, saying about being grossly simplistic and deeply confused.
5. The token Christianity comment was actually from Steve. He used that on me and I simply held up a mirror and bounced it back at him.
Finally, I don’t have the stomach to sift through all of Steve’s posts and listing out all of the rude or offensive things he has written. But I will point out that the very first response he made to me on my first comment, ended with the phrase, “Are you just making up your own theology out of thin air?” Not quite ad hominem maybe, but it certainly did set the tone. Since then he has several times called into question my commitment to Christ – which he is not in a position to do, called me an unbeliever, an infidel, faithless, and pitiful, among other things. He is nobody to me. so I don’t really care much what his opinion is of me, but he is boorish. (yes, I know that last was personal)
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“As for my credentials regarding scholarly study of Christianity, I have none, and I agree with your conclusion that there’s absolutely no reason you or anyone else should take anything I say seriously. Of course, the same can be said for the vast majority of the population”
No, the conclusion isn’t that we shouldn’t take “the vast majority of the population” seriously. Rather, I’m responding to your earlier implicit point about credentials, i.e., that someone can all but ignore an argument if a person doesn’t have the right credentials or qualifications.
However, at least as far as I’m aware, no one else here puts the same stock into credentials as you do. I certainly don’t. I still consider arguments against a position even if the person doesn’t have the “right” credentials or qualifications.
This is not to suggest I care not a whit for credentials. But even the best credentials can’t save a poor argument or fly against the evidence. My point is the lack of credentials shouldn’t in and of itself be an impediment to considering a reasonable argument, as you’ve implicitly said.
“As for the other characters, you’re right, Jesus was speaking with real people, and other than Adam and Eve in that list, I think there is good reason to believe that these characters in the bible were based on actual persons.”
Good that you concede the point that “it’s entirely possible that some of those characters were more mythical than real. I can live with that and still benefit from the text.”
Of course, Steve originally wrote in response to you: “If you think the Pentateuchal narrator viewed Adam as a fictional character, then, in logical consistency, you must believe the Pentateuchal narrator viewed Cain, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Terah, Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Levi, Jethro, Moses, Miriam, Pharaoh, Caleb, Joshua, &c., as fictional characters.”
As such, you’re still arbitrarily excluding Adam and Eve. You certainly don’t offer any reasons for why you think they should be excluded in light of your concession. Just more of your “opinions,” I guess.
“The last bit is once again heading us off the rails, but”
Well, you’re the one who originally had a problem with Steve’s ad hominem. So I simply brought up the point that you too have committed ad hominem, and then gave examples of your ad hominem.
“Finally, I don’t have the stomach to sift through all of Steve’s posts and listing out all of the rude or offensive things he has written. But I will point out that the very first response he made to me on my first comment, ended with the phrase, ‘Are you just making up your own theology out of thin air?’ Not quite ad hominem maybe, but it certainly did set the tone.”
I don’t agree with your assessment of Steve saying “rude or offensive things”. But even if it were true, you didn’t have to respond in kind. No one forced you to type “rude or offensive things” in return.
“Since then he has several times called into question my commitment to Christ – which he is not in a position to do, called me an unbeliever, an infidel, faithless, and pitiful, among other things. He is nobody to me. so I don’t really care much what his opinion is of me, but he is boorish. (yes, I know that last was personal)”
You’re taking offense at Steve’s conclusions, but you’re disregarding his supporting arguments which undergird these conclusions.
To be a Christian is, minimally, to be a believer. There’s more to it than that, but there’s not less to it than that. You’ve clearly lost faith in Bible history. You only believe what you happen to find credible. (Cf. James 1:6-8 and Eph 4:14.)
steve hays says
As for scientific objections to Adam, have you ever bothered to acquaint yourself with the other side of the argument? For instance:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/adam-versus-claims-from-genetics/
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/02/did-they-really-exist-biblical-and.html
http://byfaithonline.com/the-case-for-adam-and-eve-our-conversation-with-c-john-collins/
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/venemas-genesis-and-genome.html
http://a-short-saying.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-tale-of-two-cases.html
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-the-chromosomal-fusion-argument-doesnt-wash/
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/640ee5bfb01620f5eacd6675a51bc119/miscdocs/id101_franciscollinsrebuttal.pdf
Gary says
Let’s see,
Poythress – philosopher and new testament theologian
Jonathan Mclatchie – grad student?
C. John Collins – degrees in computer science, systems engineering and Hebrew, didn’t address the science at all anyway
Todd C Wood – unclear what his credentials are, but he didn’t discredit Venema’s work, he simply said he disagreed.
A. Taylor Rollo – degree in physics and MDiv.
Jonathan M – no information given on his credentials, so it’s hard to say what his opinion is worth.
I’m not sure that there’s anyone on this list, who’s qualified to speak with any authority on genetics.
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“Poythress – philosopher and new testament theologian”
Poythress the polymath. He studied math at Caltech as an undergrad (in fact I believe he was a Putnam fellow, no small distinction). Then he received a PhD in mathematics from Harvard. His mathematical background is relevant to the topic at hand. For example, the idea that there couldn’t have been less than say 10-15k individuals around 50-100k years ago, and the many other arguments over population genetics including a population bottleneck, could benefit from the studied eye of a mathematician.
“Jonathan Mclatchie – grad student?”
Jonathan Mclatchie says: “I hold an honors degree in Forensic Biology, and a Masters (M.Res) degree in Evolutionary Biology.”
“C. John Collins – degrees in computer science, systems engineering and Hebrew, didn’t address the science at all anyway”
Then check out his book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?.
“Todd C Wood – unclear what his credentials are, but he didn’t discredit Venema’s work, he simply said he disagreed.”
He studied biology as an undergrad, but received his doctorate in biochemistry from the University of Virginia. Indeed, his main advisor was William Pearson. He’s done work in bioinformatics as well.
“A. Taylor Rollo – degree in physics and MDiv.”
Another example of your fallacious thinking. Will you only interact with arguments from those with relevant credentials? What if the argument is reasonable and sound?
“Jonathan M – no information given on his credentials, so it’s hard to say what his opinion is worth.”
Do you have the relevant credentials with regard to anything you’ve claimed here?
“I’m not sure that there’s anyone on this list, who’s qualified to speak with any authority on genetics.”
As I’ve shown above, you’re sorely mistaken.
It says more about you than others that you’re evidently only willing to accept arguments from authority. Of course, the appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy as well.
In any case, the debate is hardly limited to or necessarily even primarily about genetics. Neo-Darwinian theory is hardly limited to genetics. It’s an interdisciplinary field.
All this is taking place in the context of Christianity too. So it’s hardly unbecoming to likewise look to OT scholars or theologians, among many others.
James F. McGrath says
Deferring to the consensus of experts in a field in which you are not a specialist is not a fallacy, it is wise. Appealing to fringe views held by small numbers of academics, chosen because they agree with your own view, and claiming that because they have certain credentials therefore their views are more likely to be correct than what the majority of experts conclude – that is the fallacy.
steve hays says
McGrath’s appeal to expert testimony is self-defeating. For you can have experts on opposing sides of the same issue. Some fiat creationists are experts in the field. Some progressive creationists are experts in the field. Some intelligent-design theorists are experts in the field. Within evolutionary biology, there are ferocious disagreements between experts in the field.
In addition, experts can suffer from tunnel vision. They get use to one way of looking at a problem. That can stall progress. An outsider can sometimes make a breakthrough contribution, precisely because he has a fresh pair of eyes.
steve hays says
An obvious problem with your claim that we should defer to expert opinion on Darwinism (or whatever) is that experts often write popular presentations aimed at nonspecialists. That exercise presumes that a nonspecialist is able to assess the evidence when the evidence is presented to him by an expert.
In addition, experts often rely on general presuppositions or logical inferences that are not specific to their discipline.
Patrick Chan says
James F. McGrath said:
“Deferring to the consensus of experts in a field in which you are not a specialist is not a fallacy, it is wise.”
If that’s what Gary was actually proposing, it’d be fine. But that wasn’t his point. Nice attempt at spin though.
“Appealing to fringe views held by small numbers of academics, chosen because they agree with your own view, and claiming that because they have certain credentials therefore their views are more likely to be correct than what the majority of experts conclude – that is the fallacy.”
1. If so, then one would hope people wouldn’t appeal to your work on early Christianity.
2. The only person here who puts such stock into credentials is Gary. I’m merely answering Gary on his own grounds, but that hardly means I believe what Gary believes about credentials.
3. What makes you think I would agree with their views in general? I never claimed I did or didn’t.
4. The proximal reason I would cite them though is simply to respond to Gary.
5. In any case, I disagree with people like James Shapiro and Denis Noble in many if not most of their views including their views about neo-Darwinian theory. Nevertheless, Shapiro and Noble (among others) have seriously questioned fundamental aspects of neo-Darwinism. What’s more, many of their views cut against “the majority of experts” on the issue. Yet Shapiro and Noble are widely regarded as experts with sterling credentials on the topic, even though other experts disagree with them. In fact, as I’ve already pointed out above, Jerry Coyne has vehemently and publicly disagreed with Shapiro.
Gary says
This is just getting too big for me to keep up with, I have other things to do and can’t keep up with the number of posts that seem to concern me, so some of them will have to go unanswered.
Maybe there is more than one Vern Poythress, but when I consulted that bastion of information, Wikipedia, it said, “Vern Sheridan Poythress (born 1946) is a Calvinist philosopher and theologian and New Testament scholar.” So that’s where that came from.
I don’t know Jonathan Mclatchie the way you seem to. I looked at his bio on the link provided and post-grad student was all it said, which could mean anything. I mis-typed that as grad student in my other post. I see Mr. Mclatchie has also posted below clarifying his qualifications, and it seems he does have the credentials to be treated with credibility. My apologies to Jonathan for my earlier post suggesting you shouldn’t be taken seriously, but perhaps you could update your profile to make it a bit clearer.
Patrick asked if I have relevant credentials with regard to anything I’ve claimed here. The answer is no, of course not. But then what have I claimed? I’ve presented no scientific arguments for chromosomal fusion or endogenous retroviruses, I have no choice but to leave that stuff up to the pros. But when I have to choose between a lawyer (Luskin) trying to critique one of the top geneticists on the planet (Collins) then the geneticist wins every time in my view. That doesn’t mean that Luskin is always wrong and Collins is always right, it simply means that I don’t have the capacity to judge between them based upon the merits of their arguments alone, so I am forced to look at who is more believable in this particular field of expertise. Which is also my answer to Jonathan’s question of why his credentials matter. I think they matter a great deal, because if it turned out he was a plumber who had read some stuff on genetics and then wrote that article talking about minimum population sizes and Y-chromosomal paradoxes, I wouldn’t put very much stock in it even if I could understand it. But with the credentials that he does have it gives his article a great deal of credibility, and I plan to go back and read it over again.
Anyway, Mr. McGrath got here way before me and said it clearer and briefer than I could have, but I completely agree.
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“Patrick asked if I have relevant credentials with regard to anything I’ve claimed here. The answer is no, of course not. But then what have I claimed?”
You’ve made plenty of claims with regard to Christian beliefs. Such as about Adam and Eve and Jesus. Much of what you say seems to argue just like Enns argues. But by your own admission you don’t have the “relevant credentials” like at least Enns does.
“But when I have to choose between a lawyer (Luskin) trying to critique one of the top geneticists on the planet (Collins) then the geneticist wins every time in my view.”
According to his biography: “Casey Luskin is an attorney with graduate degrees in science and law, giving him expertise in both the scientific and legal dimensions of the debate over evolution. He earned his B.S. and M.S. in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, where he studied evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. His law degree is from the University of San Diego, where he focused his studies on First Amendment law, education law, and environmental law. In his role at Discovery Institute, Mr. Luskin works as Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture, assisting and defending scientists, educators, and students who seek to freely study, research, and teach about the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. He formerly conducted geological research at Scripps Institution for Oceanography (1997-2002).”
Of course, if you really want to compare people, then you should compare Collins with someone like James Shapiro or Denis Noble or plenty of others. In fact, Steve already provided you with links to articles or posts by people like Todd Wood with whom you could compare Collins. It’s not as if Luskin’s article is the only article Steve cited. So why are you picking on Luskin as if Luskin were the only available option on offer?
Besides, our point is to look at the arguments, not the credentials. So even if Luskin were “just” a lawyer, what’s wrong with lawyers looking at the arguments? They’re trained to spot shoddy arguments. After all, Phillip Johnson was “just” a lawyer too. Yet, of course, Darwin on Trial exposed so many of the flaws in the argument for evolution (at least for its day).
“That doesn’t mean that Luskin is always wrong and Collins is always right, it simply means that I don’t have the capacity to judge between them based upon the merits of their arguments alone, so I am forced to look at who is more believable in this particular field of expertise.”
As far as that goes, both Luskin and Collins and many others including others with the appropriate “credentials” (as you’d say) have written popular level works arguing for their views. The assumption with a popular level book is that it can be understood by a layperson.
“Which is also my answer to Jonathan’s question of why his credentials matter. I think they matter a great deal, because if it turned out he was a plumber who had read some stuff on genetics and then wrote that article talking about minimum population sizes and Y-chromosomal paradoxes, I wouldn’t put very much stock in it even if I could understand it. But with the credentials that he does have it gives his article a great deal of credibility, and I plan to go back and read it over again.”
So I guess you wouldn’t put very much stock in William Herschel’s discoveries in astronomy like Uranus and infrared radiation since he didn’t have the relevant credentials. He was just a musician.
So I guess you wouldn’t put very much stock in Michael Faraday’s works on physics and chemistry since he never received an earned degree in either. He was basically self-educated.
So I guess you wouldn’t put very much stock in Ramanujan’s math papers since he never received a degree in math. In fact, he was all but a starving peasant until he sent a few of his papers to Hardy.
So I guess you wouldn’t put very much stock in Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics since he only studied some philosophy, some theology, some physics, but was primarily just a monk.
So I guess you wouldn’t put very much stock in Charles Darwin’s work on evolution and natural selection since he was a med school dropout and received a bachelor of arts en route to becoming an Anglican minister. He didn’t receive a bachelor of science.
“Anyway, Mr. McGrath got here way before me and said it clearer and briefer than I could have, but I completely agree.”
I’ve already responded to McGrath.
Likewise, Steve has responded to McGrath, and said it clearer and briefer than I could have, but I completely agree.
C. M. Granger says
Given that the consensus of experts in the field changes, it is not wise to ultimately subject God’s revelation to it.
I much prefer God’s credentials.
Jonathan McLatchie says
Gary,
Why should my credentials matter? What is important is the evidence and arguments presented. They should stand or fall on their own merits. Who I am should be irrelevant. Since you enquired, however, I do have a BSc (Forensic Biology) and an MRes (Evolutionary Biology). Incidentally, something I wrote in early 2011, when I was still an undergraduate, is unlikely to accurately represent my current opinions or arguments. I have moved on a lot since 2011. For the record, I think common descent is probably correct and is supported on balance by the evidence (happy to provide reasons). But I don’t think neo-Darwinism is scientifically defensible.
Jonathan
Jonathan McLatchie says
I might add, however, that I don’t consider the chromosome 2 fusion argument to be a good argument for human/chimp shared ancestry. There are other arguments that are stronger (e.g. the distribution of endogenous retroviruses in primate genomes).
steve hays says
I don’t know where you come up with the notion that Poythress is a philosopher. However, let’s play along with that for discussion purposes. By your standard, when buys like Michael Ruse, Elliott Sober, and Massimo Pigliucci write in defense of Darwinism, we should automatically discount their arguments inasmuch as these men are philosophers of science rather than evolutionary biologists.
steve hays says
“Geneticists and biologists have ruled out the possibility of a single pair of ancestors, so how do you harmonize those facts with your token christianity?”
Those aren’t facts, those are opinions. You need to learn the difference. When push comes to shove, the word of God is more reliable than human opinion.
Patrick Chan says
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III said:
“Mainstream natural science – human genetics, DNA coding, anthropological archeology, etc. – has been studying the origins of man for some time and it seems there is now a consensus: we can no longer believe that humanity has descended from an original pair of human beings.”
1. Everything you say hinges on this point. But where’s this consensus?
2. Besides, even if there were a consensus, good science shoudn’t be interested in consensus for the sake of consensus but for the sake of truth. Consensus is worthless if it’s not grounded on truth.
3. “Human genetics.” “DNA coding.” “Anthropological archeology.” You’re just rattling off a series of buzzwords without offering any sort of reasoned argument.
“Many of the same scientific laws and methodology that produce findings on genetics are also responsible for treatments of cancer, data on distant galaxies, medicinal and surgical advances for premature babies, and a host of products and technologies we consume and enjoy every day.”
Really now? Which “of the same scientific laws and methodology” are you talking about? How is the scientific method “the same” for genetics, astronomy, medicine and surgery, etc.? It’s not as if we require a randomized controlled trial in order to establish the Andromeda galaxy is approximately 2.5 million light-years away from our Milky Way galaxy.
The truth is there are disparate ways to approach a scientific problem, and the best scientists often tailor their approach according to the problem at hand.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
Dear Patrick,
The quote above is from Jared Oliphant in his article “Our Make-Believe Parents: When Adam Becomes More Fiction than Fact” at
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/our-makebelieve-parents-when-adam-becomes-more-fiction-than-fact.php NOT myself. Jared is reporting what is being said in the sciences. He, and I, firmly believe that we all go back to Noah and his sons, Japheth, Ham and Shem who go back to Adam and Eve as the article indicates. He is using the various reports and assuming FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that if what they say is true, then these things follow. BUT, if they are indeed false, as he believes they are, then the following is what is happening. Oliphant is NOT using a “straw man” argument.
Furthermore, it still comes down to who do we “believe” to be the FINAL authority. It is common to say in most doctrinal statements that “The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice” with some variation thereof. But this statement is really incorrect for it places a dichotomy between faith and practice (theological doctrine and behavior) and between what is historical and scientific. The doctrine of the Bible should read: “The Bible is the sole and final authority on ALL that it TEACHES not just faith and practice. There is the notion then that faith is not only subjective, BUT OBJECTIVE. This is because faith and knowledge are both intuitive, intellectual and experiential. The Incarnation and the Resurrection of Jesus is based, in part, on the issue of the historical Adam both in the Creation, creation of Adam, Eve and the Sin of Adam.
Knowledge in the human realm is necessarily limited by time: it refers to the past and present. Faith on the other hand will take what is given by knowledge and project it to the future. The problems lies also in that knowledge of the past, since it is limited, cannot reveal to us what happened in the beginning UNLESS it is revealed to us. Moses was given that revelation. David also was given that revelation. I think you get the picture. The chapters of Genesis regarding Creation, Adam, Eve, etc. were written in contradistinction to what was being written in the Ancient Near East. While other nations or peoples believed in many gods/goddesses with specific realms of authority or rule, the God of Israel was portrayed as the God of All (Genesis 1-2; Isaiah 40-45 especially 45:18-25) with power over everthing.
This argument over whether the universe, earth, man, etc. was by evolution or by fiat of God has being going on from the time man rejected God and believed in a multiplicity of gods.
Patrick Chan says
Hi Rev. Williams,
I’m afraid to say I think your comments have been all over the place. Going through them is like trying to untangle a series of knots!
But I’ll try to focus on one or two points I think relevant:
“The quote above is from Jared Oliphant in his article “Our Make-Believe Parents: When Adam Becomes More Fiction than Fact”
On the one hand, I appreciate what Jared is attempting to do.
On the other hand, his article is a jumble. Yes, maybe he’s introducing these objections for the sake of argument. Problem is, if you’re going to do that, you need to follow that up with a rebuttal. In addition to his hasty generalizations, his reply doesn’t operate at the same level as the objections. He has no direct rebuttal for the objections he lodges. It’s like he’s lending ammo to the enemy, then returning fire with blanks.
“Furthermore, it still comes down to who do we ‘believe’ to be the FINAL authority.”
Yes and no. Some professing Christians speak with a forked tongue. They could very well say the Bible is the final authority, but then present arguments which undermine the Bible and Christianity (e.g. inerrancy).
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“Geneticists and biologists have ruled out the possibility of a single pair of ancestors”
Likewise, other geneticists and biologists have ruled in the possibility of a single pair of ancestors.
Gary says
If divine revelation must always comport with what we observe, then the Resurrection cannot be true, neither can miracles, etc. You therefore drain Christianity of it’s supernatural elements and have something other than the faith revealed in Scripture. C.M.Granger
I’m not sure I follow you here. Was the resurrection not observed? Certainly a number of people claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection. The same goes for miracles. If Jesus healed a lame man and it was witnessed and recorded for us, well that is observed reality, is it not?
C. M. Granger says
You said:
“Firstly, I consider what you call natural revelation to be divine revelation, as creation is afterall from God. Hence, they should comport with one another, and when the plain text reading of the bible appears to conflict with observed reality, then it only makes sense to question whether or not that reading of the bible is correct. I don’t know that natural revelation takes precedence, but it is still part of God’s revelation and therefore contains God’s truth, so at the very least, it should help inform us as to how to interpret the bible correctly.”
The plain text reading of the Bible asserts the Resurrection of Christ, miracles, and a historical Adam, all of which you have not observed. To Cain, Abel, Eve, Seth, etc. Adam was an observed reality. Why are their observations insufficient for you, but those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are acceptable?
And natural revelation is taking precedence when you evaluate the supernatural or historical truth claims of Scripture by them. It is your default ruling standard…
Gary says
If Cain, Abel et al were historical individuals and had left any sort of reliable record of such an event then I might agree with you. As for the gospels, I do consider them to be accurate historical documents for the most part. But I don’t think of the bible as a monolithic whole; as you already know, it’s a collection of books representing various genres, which explains why I have no problem treating the first eleven chapters of Genesis much differently than I do the gospels, and don’t feel that a plain text reading of them is the correct way to approach them. Also, there are some passages in the bible that you don’t accept the plain text reading of either, but have allowed an accepted scientific understanding of the world to influence your interpretation, so how is what I’m doing qualitatively any different?
Patrick Chan says
Gary said:
“If Cain, Abel et al were historical individuals and had left any sort of reliable record of such an event then I might agree with you.”
That begs the question that the Torah or Pentateuch isn’t a reliable record.
“As for the gospels, I do consider them to be accurate historical documents for the most part.”
As we’ve already seen, you only believe what you want to believe. You pick and choose based on your whims or fancies.
“But I don’t think of the bible as a monolithic whole; as you already know, it’s a collection of books representing various genres, which explains why I have no problem treating the first eleven chapters of Genesis much differently than I do the gospels, and don’t feel that a plain text reading of them is the correct way to approach them.”
1. The latter doesn’t follow from the former.
2. Whoever said “a plain text reading” is “the correct way to approach them”? What about, say, the historical-grammatical method?
“Also, there are some passages in the bible that you don’t accept the plain text reading of either, but have allowed an accepted scientific understanding of the world to influence your interpretation, so how is what I’m doing qualitatively any different?”
The difference can be seen when push comes to shove: you allow science to have the final word over Scripture.
C. M. Granger says
Gary,
After you sift the Bible through your historical reliability grid, what you have left is the personal canon of Gary. I wonder if the Lord puts His imprimatur upon your hermeneutic?
I didn’t say that every passage of Scripture is meant to be interpreted by the plain meaning of the text. That is the phrase you used,
“when the plain text reading of the bible appears to conflict with observed reality, then it only makes sense to question whether or not that reading of the bible is correct. ”
Of course current scientific understanding of the world influences my interpretation to some degree, but it doesn’t contradict what Scripture says. When a conflict arises between the text and a popular scientific theory, the text is preeminent. However, you are forcing the meaning of the text into the mold of modern scientific consensus. That’s how what you are doing is qualitatively different.
Gary says
I’m not suggesting we remove anything from the canon CJ, I accept all the same books as you.
But you are doing exactly the same thing by modifying the meaning of some passages based on your modern understanding of the world. There is no qualitative difference, I simply apply it to a larger portion of scripture.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
The modern understanding of the world is a “theological” view. It wants to look at the world without ANY SUPERNATURAL influence in its premises. This attempt to change what Scripture is clearly saying is the same as the attempt by Marcion, et al, who think that the God of the OT is NOT the God of the NT; that the Jews have forfeited the right of being God’s People by crucifying Christ, etc. All of these attempts are placing man as the final authority NOT God.
Remember that Marcion did “believe” in the Christ, but his “theological” presuppositions required him to deny that the God of the OT was the Father of Jesus and the God of the NT. Many of the Classical Greek writers, i.e. Aristotle being a prime example believed in some form of evolution. Furthermore, there is the presupposition that polytheism was the order of the day, then the Jews introduced monotheism. The opening chapters of Genesis refute that notion. Monotheism, Creation, Adam, Eve, etc. are contrary to the worldview common in that day. Moses states that monotheism was the order of the day and that belief in many gods was because of unbelief. Thus, the sin of UNBELIEF rears its head again (Adam did not believe what God said about eating the fruit).
Finally, whether one believes or not in Creation, etc., the fact remains that NO ONE was present at the beginning EXCEPT GOD. Thus, what He states as fact is not to be trifled with by using verbal gymnastics, playing with semantics, etc. It is true or not. I believe it is true. Whether that conforms to modern attempts to explain something that happened ages ago is not the point. If one looks at the various attempts to deny the Creation when it is used as the basis of much of proving that the God of Israel was over all is quite telling. Isaiah uses the whole issue of Creation by God to prove that the God of Israel is above other gods; in fact, to prove that there are no other gods but God is an interesting study in itself (see Isaiah 41-45 especially 45:18). We have not even discussed the Psalms and Job in their poetic use of Creation for the purposes of proving that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Thus, this discussion seems to runs its course for now.
C. M. Granger says
Gary,
The Scriptures are a historical record of the people of God and His dealings with them in covenant love, from Adam to Christ. Now, is there a qualitative difference? Applying a current understanding of science, properly so called, doesn’t change the meaning of Scripture.