PC Answers Questions to a Doctoral Student on Evolution and Religion

Last year a doctoral student at a university in Tennessee discovered my blog and a few discussions on Baptist online forums of which I had taken parting 2003. The student was researching the issue of evolution and religion for his dissertation, and I am apparently one of only a handful of evangelical Baptists that accepts the theory of biological evolution. Doesn’t speak well to the validity of my position, does it?

Nevertheless, the student sent me a few questions whose answers I shall now post.

First, are you currently a Baptist pastor?

No. I am a Baptist looking for a ministry in which to pastor.

I’ve pastored in churches in Texas and North Carolina.

I’m a son of a Baptist pastor and a grandson of Baptist missionaries.

Oddly enough, while I have been looking for ministry work in Southern Baptist churches, my wife and I have been attending a Methodist church here in Ohio, partly because it is like a Southern Baptist church we enjoyed in Texas.

And just this past Sunday, the pastor (a conservative and an inerrantist) made an aside comment that Christians should not be beating each other up over evolution.


Second, many people with whom I've talked have told me that the SBC has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in the last couple of decades. Would you agree with that? Any comments on it?

I include this lengthy response because I it might be of interest to you.

Yes, that is unfortunately true. I have fundamentalist friends and family, and I both love them and thoroughly enjoy ministering with them. And while I do not agree with many of their distinct positions, I don’t care that they have them.

The SBC has always been a very conservative body of Christian believers. The vast majority are conservatives in which there is a very large block of fundamentalists of various sorts. There have always been a significant minority of moderate Baptists and a very insignificant minority of liberals. The leadership of the SBC was made up of moderates and conservatives.

As I’m sure you are very much aware, the issues of biological evolution and the interpretation of the Bible caused tremendous controversy in the SBC during the 20th century. Under pressure from fundamentalists and conservatives, the SBC leadership wrote a confession of faith in 1925 and amended it in 1963. Both of these versions state the orthodox Christian beliefs that God created the world and that the Bible is authoritative. Moderates and many conservatives sought to be present an inclusive document.

However, in the 1980s, conservatives (with fundamentalist leaders) began to use their denominational leadership positions to reform the structure of the SBC to prevent anyone but conservatives from being appointed to positions in the organization. At the same time, conservatives began to fire all the non-conservatives that were already in SBC positions. They also fired conservatives who were critical of the other firings and the takeover. This continued through the 1990s and culminated in the conservatives and fundamentalists amending the confession of faith in 2000. After it was adopted, every employee of the SBC was required to sign this document or be fired. Many, many were fired or made a hasty retreat before they were. By itself, the implementation of this confession and its fall out had the SBC reeling from the inside out.

However, the 1963 version of the confession included a prologue that explicitly stated that this document was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.” This allowed SBC employees (particularly seminary professors) from holding positions contrary to the 2000 confession just so long as they do not teach or preach otherwise. The last decade of the SBC has been repeated incidences of fundamentalist weeding these employees out and getting them fired.

What occurred in the SBC seminaries during the 1990s and 2000s has now begun to occur in Baptist colleges such as Carson Newman in TN and, most recently, at Truett-McConnell College in Georgia which plans to become the first Baptist college to require its faculty to affirm the 2000 confession.

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4671/53/
Many of the same fundamentalist leaders are involved.

None of the three Baptist confessions (even the fundamentalist penned version of 2000) reference the issue of evolution either explicitly or implicitly.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp

But there are many issues important to SBC fundamentalists on which there is less than solid convention support. And there is very little support for amending the Baptist confession.

Therefore, for the past few years, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC has been using the trustee system of the various convention agencies, including the seminaries, to enact theological standards which would not pass via the regular practice of convention vote.

I mention all this because if you’re asking about the SBC becoming increasingly fundamentalistic and how this relates to evolution and education (particularly in TN), then this is what has been done to the Baptist seminaries and what is now being done at the Baptist colleges.


Third, and this is related to the second question, how common are your views on evolution among evangelicals? As I said, from my own perspective, they seem extremely rare.

From my perspective, I assume that they are very rare too. Most evangelicals seem to associate biological evolution with atheism.

But if I had to hazard a guess, I would say that most Southern Baptists who accept the theory of biological evolution would keep it to themselves.

Obviously, biological evolution isn’t mentioned in 2000 plus year old documents that make of the Bible. It’s certainly unessential to the Faith. A Christian can reject evolution and still have a healthy and productive spiritual life. And it’s not an issue with which the average pastor, religious teacher, or church confronts. Combined with its controversial nature, for a pastor or religious teacher to announce their support for the theory would only be a distraction from the essentials.

In my four years at seminary, I never heard a professor state their position on the issue. Only one student ever stated his position to me and only through commenting on my blog. During that time, I only heard two SBC leaders make statements at seminary denouncing biological evolution, and both of them are two of the three recognized individuals who led the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention.

Given this and all I mentioned regarding the Fundamentalist takeover of the convention, I think it’s quite understandable that many SBC employees and pastors would keep their position quiet.


Fourth, in the baptist discussion board I read when you were talking about Brady Tarr, you were talking about reading Genesis as an apocalyptic text. What do you mean by that? I'm afraid I'm not theologically trained.

It was a hypothesis I had then that I have yet to pursue any further than you have read. I have only met one Old Testament scholar (a friend) who holds this position. I’ve never seen it in any other paper, article, or book that I can find.

The Apocalyptic genre of literature essentially presents a “spiritual” interpretation of history. It offers a “behind-the-scenes” view of what is going on with particular events and peoples and how it relates to God and the writer of the apocalyptic work’s intended audience. Apocalyptic literature is popularly known to focus on future events, but it just as often comments on present and past events. The Biblical books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah are prime examples but there are others in and outside the Jewish and Christian canons.

Apocalyptic literature will use symbolism, word play, exaggerated actions, fantastic creatures, “angelic beings”, truncated history, and otherworldly scenarios. This Biblical genre has a lot in common with basic dreams and many apocalyptic passages will occur in the context of a dream (Daniel chapters 2, 4, and 7; but also, as I will argue one day, Genesis 28, 40, and 41). The first three chapters of Genesis contain symbolism, puns and word play, fantastic talking animals, “angelic beings”, and many other apocalyptic characteristics that I’ll argue. The connection to the Tree of Life in Revelation 22:2 is my favourite.

But even though my apocalyptic argument has yet to be made, many other evangelical and conservative scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the Genesis story hold the story to be figurative but true because its genre (whether poem, psalm, apocalypse, “myth”, short-story, etc.) permits to be non-literal but true.

Ask a fundamentalist about whether he or she believes that the book of Revelation is true. Naturally, he or she will say yes that they do, even though it is written in symbolic, non-literal language.


Fifth, have you been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky? I don't think it's far from you, but I figured you'd have blogged about it if you had gone. Any comments on it?

I have not been to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.


It was this question of which I was reminded while reading the Baptist Press article on “Noah’s Ark”. The Baptist Press quoted a statement from Answers in Genesis, the apologetics ministry that operates the Creation Museum just outside of Cincinnati. I currently live just over an hour away from the museum but have yet to visit.

Church Signs - Backside Baptist Church

Desperately Seeking Insensitive Servant

"Seeking a full-time, bi-vocational pastor for youth, worship, visitation, lawn care, and can preach every other Sunday. Preferably college-aged or seminary-aged who hasn't had any experience negotiating with a deacon board. Preferably single or, if married, not planning to have any children. The deacon chairman is a doctor and can perform the medical procedure ("snip, snip"). He has lots of such experience working with church staffs.

Direct all questions and resumes to:

Attn: Rev. Geddy Lee Gibb
2nd Baptist Church
2 Origen High Street, Enoch, Connectitcutt, 90125


‘Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name ...’ (Isaiah 56:5)”




[I applaud the person who can catch the "90125" joke.]

Calvinism, Election, the Atonement, and Infant Damnation: Questions Answered

I had someone reply to the True/False Test on Calvinism article I post early last year. Great questions! Really good. I decided to post his questions and comments and my answers for all our general educations.


"Christ is the elect" So Paul is writing to Jesus in Titus? Peter is writing to Jesus as well in 1 Peter? Your use of "election" in 12 is interesting.

Please reread what I wrote:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

If I had meant that Jesus was the only elect, I would not have used the words “first” and “foremost”; I would have used the word “only”.

In 1 Peter 1:6, Peter refers to himself as elect.

In 1 Peter 2:4 and 6, the “elect” to which Peter refers to is Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:9, the “elect” refers to believers.

But the point Peter is making here is that believers are elect because Christ is the elect first and foremost. Christ is the choice cornerstone on which God is building a temple of living stones (believers, the elect).

In Matthew 21:42, Jesus applies Psalm 118:22-23 to himself: “Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes”?’” (see also Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).

Paul refers to believers as a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19).

Jesus was well-known in his time for saying that if the temple was destroyed, he could rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19). But as the Gospel of John notes, Jesus was referring to his own body (John 2:21).

Now, in verse 1 Peter 2:9, Peter quotes from Exodus 19:6: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Peter is making a connection here between Israel as God’s chosen people and all believers of the church as God’s chosen people. How can he do so?

The essential concept here is that Christ IS Israel in a very significant sense.

Note Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn.”

Of course, we all know that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, his firstborn.

The idea here is that Christ is “first and foremost” the elect and all who have faith in him are elected because they associated with him whether they are believing Jews of racial “Israel” or Gentiles “grafted” into him.

In the Old Testament, Israel was often referred to as a vine (Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21; 6:9; Hosea 10:1; 14:7). In John 15:1-2, Jesus refers to himself as the “true vine”. He notes that "every branch in me that does not bear fruit, He takes away”.

In Romans 11:17, Paul writes, “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.” Gentile believers have been “grafted” into Israel and unbelieving Jews have been broken off. This is how Paul can say in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel shall be saved.” Paul is not referring to specifically to Jewish people but to Israel as it is constituted in Christ. Any other interpretation of Romans 11:26 would mean that a Jewish atheist will die and “go to heaven” simply because he is Jewish. That’s obviously nonsense.

So as you can see, 1 Peter actually confirms what I wrote concerning #12:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

13 If you don't believe in penal substitution then your answer about propitiation (35) in that it relates to the atonement needs expanded on. The rest of it is not in contrast to Calvinism, you just didn't define who is in him. His death is sufficient for any and all that are in him. One question in regards to 13 is "Christ atones for himself" what about himself needs atonement?

Here are a few of the blog posts I have written upon the subject of the Atonement. These should give you a good idea of my position upon the matter and the Scriptural evidence which supports it.

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

A Discussion On The Atonement

In brief, I believe Jesus Christ by his life and death atoned for the sin of man to God. I believe that if Christ had not sacrificed himself and atoned for man’s sins, then every person would be damned. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that this atoning sacrifice involved PUNISHING Christ for the sins of man. I do not believe that God was punishing Jesus in our place.

What occurred in the life and crucifixion of Christ was the perfect example of love and obedience from Man to God. It was certainly a sacrifice of propitiation in a sense that it was pleasing and acceptable to God and removed his wrath towards man, but that appeasement was not because Christ was punished but because Christ was obedient to God’s will. It was the self-sacrificing, self-denying love towards God and Man that pleased God the Father.

This ties into the subject of “the Elect”. Christ is the “Elect” and believers are “elected” IN him.

Christian believers have answered the call of God to follow Christ. Our choice to attach ourselves to Christ means that God looks at us through the lens of Christ and sees Jesus’ pleasing, perfect, self-sacrificing love in us.

And 1 Peter also speaks to this: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Ultimately, all our sacrifices are only acceptable because we offer them through Christ and God receives them through Christ.

Difficult stuff, to be sure, but the idea that God was punishing Christ for our sins is completely foreign to the Bible. It’s actually a horrid idea! In fact, as you will see in my blog articles on the subject, the Gospel writers go out of their way to establish that God was in no way punishing Jesus. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory was not developed until well into the second millennium of the church and is completely antithetical to what the Scriptures teach.


16 No, you need to research that. Total misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. Spurgeon for example believed that all babies went to Hell. Most (all that I've met) Calvinist believe that there are elect babies and reprobate babies just the same as grown ups. Particularly Presbyterians that believe in the covenant home.

Are you sure that you have done your research?

Charles Spurgeon (A sermon preached in London, Sept. 29, 1861)

“Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days . . .”

“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too?”

Granted, there are millions of Calvinists in this world and throughout Church history, but, in general, they’ve generally tended to believe that infants do not go to hell.

Now I do know Calvinists who are annihilationists (they believe that the eternal punishment of the “damned” is eternal death and not “eternal conscious torment”) and believe that the infants of unbelieving parents will remain dead and not participate in the resurrection of believers. However, if that parent subsequently becomes a believer, THEN the dead infant will then be able to be resurrected. I believe they get this concept partially from 1 Corinthians 7:14. This is the idea of the “covenant home” that you referenced. I’m incredulous to the idea and the exegesis myself. Yes, I believe in annihilationism but I think the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 is dubious and unnecessary.

Now the question was whether or not Calvinists believe that babies go to “Hell”.
The author of the question could have meant “Hell” either as hades (the abode of the dead, or, specifically, the state of death in which all those who die – believer and unbeliever alike – until the resurrection) or as gehenna (the state of ultimate punishment for unbelievers, which is permanent death or hades).

Since most people (Christian or not) would assume he was referring to the gehenna-like hell, I myself assume the author was referring to the latter and still assume so.

I imagine that the author would have used a qualified if he was referring to “hell” as hades.