Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Bob Helm.
@pauluc: No, you have greatly and seriously misunderstood me! Not once have I stated that “salvation depends on all the details described in the Bible.” Salvation is God’s work and was accomplished 2,000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross. This act of pure grace is received by faith alone, and even faith is something that the Holy Spirit works in us through His word. Salvation resides in Jesus, and if you put your trust in Him, you have it as a free gift. It certainly does not depend on all the details in the Bible. I merely stated that “the creation account is part of the history of salvation.” To use a German term that is common among theologians, it is “Heilsgeschichte.” Paul, I state my true conviction: A Darwinian who truly embraces Jesus Christ by faith is just as saved as any creationist. In fact, a creationist who is a legalist or who has not accepted Jesus is not saved. I actually expect to see some Darwinians in heaven, and I also think there will be some creationists who will not be not there! Salvation does not depend on head knowledge; it depends on Jesus Christ! So why is the creation account important? It is important because it reveals the fact that God designed a good world – not a world that is ruled by claw and fang and survival of the fittest (although these things are sad realities in our fallen world). Even more importantly, it reveals that human beings were created morally perfect and immortal, and that they lost paradise through sin. If Adam and Eve were not real people, and if they did not lose immortality through falling into sin, why is a Savior from sin and death necessary? Why would Jesus want to save us from suffering and death if He used suffering and death to create us in the first place? If there was no fall into sin, and if death is simply part of nature and not an intruder, then there is nothing for Jesus to save us from! As one of Mrs. O’Hair’s sons put it, “if you tear down the Genesis creation account, you will find the dead body of the Son of God in the rubble!” Yes, you can be a Darwinian and a Christian, and I am thankful that there are theistic evolutionists who love Jesus. But Darwinian Christians are only a reality because the human brain has an interesting capacity to believe mutually contradictory ideas. Educated people who really desire intellectual honesty (especially young people) see through the facade of theistic evolution. Darwinism is probably compatible with Pantheism and even Deism, but it is not logically compatible with Biblical Christianity. Again – I am not a Biblical inerrantist, and I do not believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture. I believe in thought inspiration, which puts me outside the fundamentalist camp. But I do consider myself to be a conservative evangelical, and I believe the Bible gives us an accurate picture of salvation history. And the creation account is an important part of salvation history!
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Dear Professor Kent,
Two thoughts – although it appears in the NIV, your pluperfect – “the water had gone down” – is really unwarranted, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Gen 8:3 in the NASB simply states: “At the end of the one hundred and fifty days, the water decreased.” There is no reason to make it any more complicated than that, and this statement accords perfectly with the idea that the flood crested on the 150th day. By the way, this is not “Bob Helm’s suggestion,” as many expositors hold this position.
Secondly, where in the world did you get the idea that every bird species was on the ark and that those ancient birds had identical diets to modern birds? Please don’t fall for the hoary falsehood that creationists believe in a fixity of species. Modern creationists agree with Darwin that new species emerge via natural selection. We do not equate baramins or “created kinds” with species, and we believe that micro-evolution occurs within the baramins.
An apology to PUC
This was a good move on the part of Educate Truth. Their posting of the video was wrong, but it also takes courage to admit to doing wrong, and I commend them for that.
