Meanwhile…

Heading out to Yosemite National Park for a week of fun with my favorite volunteer org, Conservation Volunteers International Program. Meanwhile, I’ve made available my entire thesis (if you can’t sleep) entitled The Mystery of God Incarnate: An Analysis and Critique of John Hick’s Christology. Excerpt below.

The doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus of Nazareth would be a logical absurdity if one were to assert that Jesus both had the essential attributes of deity and, at the same time, did not have the essential attributes of deity. However, the position which upholds the Chalcedonian confession is that some of Jesus’ attributes were divine and some were human. Contradictory statements are not the same as complex propositions, or sub-contrary relationships. An example of contradiction would be to assert that all of the people in the world are rich and, at the same time, claim that some of the people in the world are not rich. An example of a sub-contrary proposition would be to assert that some of the people in the world are rich and that some of the people in the world are not rich.

Ecclesia and Ethics: Online Conference

Upcoming online conference that looks very promising. The conference features live presentations from: N.T. Wright, Michael Gorman, Stanley Hauerwas, Shane Claiborne, Brian Rosner, Sungmin Min Chun, Nijay Gupta, Michael Barber, and Mariam Kamell. As well as over 30 presentations from around the globe.

Check out http://ecclesiaethics.wordpress.com and watch the video below.

Creation: Evolutionary or Progressive?

This is so good, I submit this in toto.

HT: Reasonable Faith

Evolutionary Creationism and the Image of God in Mankind

Question:

Dear Dr. Craig,

First off let me congratulate you on your amazing defense of Christianity as you travel about the world, debate, and lecture. I am a major fan, to say the least. However I have a question that has been put on my mind lately, concerning your views about creation and evolution. First off, I think you are spot on when you say evolution (in its many meanings) is not incompatible with Theism, rendering it useless as a objection to the concept of God. Aside from this, if I understand you right, you hold that views such as evolution[ary] creationism are compatible with the account of Genesis in the Bible. What bothers me about this is that I think, by holding this view, that God used evolution to bring about the diversity of life upon the Earth, including humans, you weaken and eliminate the notion that mankind was created in God’s image, or at least make it problematic. Now hopefully I understand you to mean by evolutionary creationism that you think God created life at a basic level, that being cellular, and directed it to create the diversity we see everywhere and at some point on the evolutionary timeline humans came about and where then chosen to be special to God. If I characterize your view wrongly, please clarify in detail. So that brings me to the question, how do you hold the view of evolutionary creationism while holding firmly that man was created in the image of God?

Andrew
USA

Dr. Craig responds:

Since I’m not an evolutionary creationist, Andrew, I guess my answer to your question would have to be “I don’t.” Evolutionary creationism is the currently chic name given to what we used to call theistic evolution, which is the view that the current evolutionary paradigm is entirely adequate, so that the evolution of presently observed biological complexity requires no causal input from God. As my current lectures on Creation and Evolution in our Defenders class make clear, however, I am not yet convinced that the mechanisms posited by the current evolutionary paradigm are adequate to explain the biological diversity that we observe today.

One cannot exaggerate just how extraordinary an extrapolation the current paradigm involves. Many of us probably think that if random mutation and natural selection can explain, for example, the evolution of the horse, then that surely shows the power of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms to account for biological diversity. In fact, evolution within a single kind like this is nothing compared to the vast range of life. You might think that if we could show that random mutation and natural selection could explain, say, how a bat and a whale evolved from a common ancestor, that would certainly show the power of these mechanisms. Think again! A bat and a whale are both mammals, which is just one of the groups of the phylum Vertebrates. Even the evolution of a bat and a whale from a common ancestor is an utter triviality compared to the vast range of the animal kingdom. Such a demonstration would do nothing to explain, for example, how a bat and a sea urchin evolved from a common ancestor, not to speak of a bat and a sponge. This represents an extrapolation of gargantuan proportions. Indeed, it represents an enormous leap of faith in the efficacy of the Darwinian mechanisms.

Moreover, the entire animal and plant kingdoms are just two twigs on the branch of Eukaryotes. There are still the two other branches of the Bacteria and Archaea to be accounted for. The extrapolation of the Darwinian mechanisms from peppered moths and fruit flies and finch beaks to the production and evolution of every living thing is a breathtaking extrapolation of gargantuan, brobdingnagian proportions. We know that in science such extrapolations often fail. For example, Albert Einstein attempted to extrapolate his principle of relativity from the special theory to a general principle of relativity that would relativize not only uniform motion but also accelerated and rotary motion. But the extrapolation failed. Instead, what Einstein discovered was a new theory of gravitation. The name “general theory of relativity” is thus something of a misnomer.

So, I ask, where is the evidence for the extraordinary extrapolation the current paradigm involves? Michael Behe says that “the evidence for common descent seems compelling,” but “. . . except at life’s periphery the evidence for a pivotal role for random mutations is terrible.” Now if he’s wrong about this, then what is the evidence? I’m genuinely open to it. But what is it? When I, as an objective observer, look at the evidence, it seems to me that we haven’t been shown any good reason to think that the neo-Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient to explain the evolution of the extraordinary diversity of life that we see on this planet during the time available.

So I’m not convinced that evolutionary creationism is true. It seems to me that so-called progressive creationism fits the evidence quite nicely. Progressive creationism suggests that God intervenes periodically to bring about miraculously new forms of life and then allows evolutionary change to take place with respect to those life forms. But as for grand evolutionary change, this would not take place by the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation undirected by God. Rather we would need miraculous interventions of God in the process of biological evolution to bring about broad evolutionary change. So instead of evolutionary creationism, we would have a kind of progressive creationism whereby God creates biological complexity over time.

That being said, however, I do not understand why the evolutionary creationist and progressive creationist alike cannot affirm that man is created in the image of God. My Old Testament colleagues tell me that the notion of man as God’s image, in the Ancient Near Eastern context, likely refers to man as God’s representative regent on Earth. Now in order to fulfill such a function, man would have to possess certain properties inherent to personhood, like self-consciousness, rationality, freedom, and the ability to stand in personal relationships. These are the sort of properties which theologians have traditionally identified as constitutive of God’s image in man. These are not properties belonging to man’s hominid body but to his soul. So it seems a matter of indifference how man’s physical body might have originated. However God chose to bring about our hominid bodies, the crucial thing that makes us human is our soul, invested with the sort of properties just described.

Worldview Evangelism: Paul in Athens

16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God- fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, What is this babbler trying to say? Others remarked, He seems to be advocating foreign gods. They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we would like to know what they mean. 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship —and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

24 The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, We are his offspring.

29 Therefore since we are Gods offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.

32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, We want to hear you again on this subject. 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.

Acts 17:16-34

What follows are some observations, often overlooked, that are critical in the effective application of this passage.

1. The Athenian context:
   • The Roman world enforced all kinds of religious pluralism both politically and legally and Athens was the heart and soul of competing worldviews.
   • Paul faced sophisticated intellectual systems in the various philosophies like the Epicureans and Stoics (and no doubt others like sophism and atheistic materialists that Luke does not mention).
   • A sneering condescension was evident, just as it is in our day (v. 18).
2. The Gospel in a pluralistic society
   • Paul was sensitive to the spiritual conflict and took action (vv. 16-17)
   • He was uncompromising in presenting the truth (v. 18) as he clearly stated that they were not worshipping the true God (v. 23),
   • He attempted to put the seekers’ concerns in a favorable light in order to keep communication open and to demonstrate respect (v. 22; cf., 1 Pt. 3:15).
   • He identified and utilized common ground by affirming a common Creator and Provider as well as our common human condition (one of contingency and dependency). While reasoning with Jews, Paul used Scripture (Acts 13:16-41, 17:2), whereas when reasoning with the secular world Paul appealed to God’s general revelation in nature, history, and the human heart (cf., Acts 14:14-17; 17:24).
   • Paul affirmed that all have been fashioned by God to long for a relationship with Him (v. 27).
   • He used logic to demonstrate that God, the Creator, could not possibly be the product of the creature. Because humans are God’s creation, idolatry is not only forbidden but also absurd (v. 29)! Paul never used the word “sin” but made it clear that idolatry is blameworthy.
   • Paul insisted that history is going somewhere. He also insisted that everyone is accountable to God, guilty before God, and in need of repentance (v. 30).
   • Paul appeals to the historical evidence of the resurrection and states that God appointed Jesus as Judge.
   • Some responded with scorn and mockery while others politely dismiss it. But a few did respond to God’s gracious call, despite the evident diversity and plurality of culture (vv. 32-34).
3. Though Paul did not quote Scripture, his appeal was thoroughly scriptural. He used reason and common ground to make his case.

---

I’m indebted to D. A. Carson’s The Gagging of God and his chapter “Athens Revisited” in Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns for many aspects presented here.

So… Exactly Who Is In Charge Here?

Read the following passages carefully and feel the power of divine power and providence.

Ezra 1:1
“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm.”

Ezra 6:22
“For seven days they celebrated with joy the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because the LORD had filled them with joy by changing the attitude of the king of Assyria, so that he assisted them in the work on the house of God, the God of Israel.”

Job 2:10
“‘Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?’ In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.”

Psalm 33:10-11
“The LORD foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.”

Psalm 115:3
“Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”

Psalm 135:5-7
“I know that the LORD is great, that our Lord is greater than all gods. The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.”

Proverbs 16:1, 4, 9, 11
“To man belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the reply of the tongue.”

“The LORD works out everything for his own ends– even the wicked for a day of disaster.”

“In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.”

“Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making.”

Proverbs 19:21
“Many are the plans in a persons heart, but it is the Lord s purpose that prevails.”
(see also, Ps 33:11; 20:24; Isa 8:10; 14:24, 27; 31:2; 40:8; 48:14; 55:11; Jer 44:29)

Proverbs 21:1
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.”

Lamentations 3:37-38
“Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”

Isaiah 46:9-10
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”

Daniel 4:34-35
“At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?”

Acts 2:23
“This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.”

Acts 4:27-28
“Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”

Acts 16:14
“One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”

Ephesians 1:4, 11
“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.”

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

2 Timothy 2:25
“Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth”

Revelation 17:17
“For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God’s words are fulfilled.”

Meditation:
The sovereignty of God includes His:

• Providence in sustaining all of creation (Ps. 104:14; 135:6-7; Matt. 5:45; Heb. 1:3)
• Concern for every detail in creation (Matt. 6:26; 10:29-30)
• Control over every nation (Ezra 1:1; Job 12:23; Ps. 22:27-28; Pr. 21:1; Dan. 4:34-35; Acts 17:26)
• Plan for our lives before it comes to pass (Job 14:5; Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:1, 9; Jer. 1:5; 29:11-14; Acts 2:23; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 2:10)

The sovereignty of God means He:

• Uses whatever means necessary to deepen our relationship with Him (Gen. 50:20; Rom. 8:28; 2 Cor. 1:8-9).
• Is not caught off guard when things seem out of control (Acts 4:28; Eph. 1:11; Jude 4)

Selah