Todd Wood on evolution

Todd Wood has been a professor of biochemistry at Bryan College in the CORE (Center for Origins Research) since the year 2000. He has a blog on which he left an interesting post about evolution. Here is a quote from that post:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you."

Todd Wood is a young earth creationist who works at Bryan College in Dayton, Ohio. This is the town where the Scopes trial was and the school is of course named after William Jennings Bryan. Interesting perspective.

Tony Campolo and the Birthday Party

This is probably one of my favorite stories Tony Campolo was at a diner at 3:30 in the morning and a bunch of prostitutes came in . . .

Hurricanes and Blessing

I was just wondering. A few years ago, we had a lot of hurricanes that ravaged the Gulf Coast and many preachers and prophets told us it was a sign of God's judgment. Can we now take the fact that we have not had a single storm, not even a tropical disturbance, as a sign of God's approval?

The US as Christian Nation - Not

Here is a perennial favorite, but one that sort of bugs me. It seems to me that evangelical Christians make the status of the USA as a Christian nation too important. It is an unspoken plank in the core of many doctrinal statements. Below I give a quote from a post that was linked to a link where a comment was left. I think that is the way it goes. Anyway, I would be interested in comments on the quote.

"The fact that some parts of the Declaration and/or Constitution are not in conflict with verses in the Bible does not mean that the Bible was the source. This is especially important when -- as in the case of the Declaration and the Constitution -- the authors claim other sources, but do not claim the Bible as a source!

In a May 8, 1825 letter to Henry Lee, Jefferson identifies his sources for the Declaration's principles. He names as sources: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and (Algernon) Sidney -- he does not mention the Bible. Then again, the terminology in the Declaration is not specifically Christian -- or even biblical, with the exception of "Creator." The term "providence" is never used of God in the Bible, nor are "nature's God" or "Supreme Judge of the world" ever used in the Bible.

In the hundreds of pages comprising Madison's notes on the constitutional convention (and those of the others who kept notes), there is no mention of biblical passages/verses in the debates/discussions on the various parts and principles of the Constitution. They mention Rome, Sparta, German confederacies, Montesquieu, and a number of other sources -- but no Scripture verses.

In The Federalist Papers, there is no mention of biblical sources for any of the Constitution's principles, either -- one would think they could squeeze them in among the 85 essays if they were, indeed, the sources; especially since the audience was common men who were familiar with, and had respect for, the Bible. The word "God" is used twice -- and one of those is a reference to the pagan gods of ancient Greece. "Almighty" is used twice and "providence" three times -- but neither is ever used in connection with any constitutional principle or influence. The Bible is not mentioned."

The link can be found here. By the way, apparently these comments come from an evangelical historian.

Already and Not Yet

The 'already / not yet' paradigm has been helpful, especially in the are of the theology of the kingdom. I wrote up the table above because I think it can be extended to salvation, and even to individual elements in soteriology. I would appreciate interaction on this.

Some Politics

Pardon this foray into politics, but to me this is an issue of clear thinking and the presentation of conservatives and Evangelicals in the public sphere. Before the election and now after, conservatives are sounding the alarms. We are coming across as fearful and angry.

One repeated accusation against Obama is that he is a socialist. I hear this often from conservatives still, having heard it during the campaign. In my view this is illegitimate hype. What is socialism? Obama's policies fall way short of socialism. Even the Socialist Party and other socialist types say that Obama is not a socialist. I am just saying we throw words around for rhetorical effect and it doesn't matter whether or not they are true. Well, as an evangelical, I think that truth ought to mean something to us.

Another big fear I hear is that basically Evangelical Christianity will be outlawed. Last January, the conservative news outlet Worldnet Daily published a "Letter from a Future Prisoner". This was set in November 2010 after Hilary's election to the presidency, coming from a Christian who had been arrested. It is pure drama and total hogwash. Obama was/is supposed to be worse than Hilary, so let's wait and see if there will be mass arrests of Christians in America in the next few years.

Could Obama's inauguration in any sense be called 'secular'? Real secularists, atheists, and members of other religions in America are baffled when Christians complain about their 'minority' status and how persecuted Christians in America are. Knowing what I know of persecution in history and around the world I am baffled as well.

We need to stay with the kingdom agenda and get off this whining, "I'm being repressed" mindset that is just ridiculous.

A Question About Methodology

Last month, I finished John Walton's commentary on Genesis in the NIV Application Commentary series. It's an excellent piece of scholarship and his applications are extremely powerful. Having recently lost Andrei, Walton's words on God's charge to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac were deep and encouraging. He has many unique and fresh insights that help the reader look at the Genesis text in a much more meaningful way than is traditionally done.

This, in fact, leads to my question. One of our Thursday Night Theology members had Walton for a class in seminary and remembers him saying that if he didn't have something new or origianl to contribute, then he wouldn't write. I can testify that this is exactly what Walton did in just about the entirety of his Genesis commentary. Not only were original perspectives shared on some of Genesis' toughest issues, but even noncontroversial passages were given a new spin. Only a miniscule number of verses were free from Walton's "new interpretation rampage."

So, is this a good way to do theology? I'm not saying that Walton published ideas as though he believed them when, in fact, he didn't, simply so that he could say something new. But it sure seems like making a prior decision to only contribute something novel could restrict you from affirming some fundamentally sound and universally agreed upon theological conclusions. The truth needs to be restated regularly and such restatements can often be improved upon. This is hard enough to do without the burden of coming up with new interpretations for everything. For all of the value of Walton's insights — and don't misunderstand me, the value is enormous — there were plenty of times when I closed the book shaking my head over why he felt that such-and-such a passage needed another perspective. It seems like this methodology could lead you down a bad road quicky, sidestepping good, right and wise thoughts so that you can arrive at alternatives.

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Zane Hodges Passed Away

I haven't written in a while, but saw this bit of news and thought I would make a note of it. Zane Hodges passed away a few days ago. Another place to look is here. For those of you who don't know Zane Hodges, I (and probably others of you) interacted with Hodges work on at least two fronts. First of all, he was an exponent of what is called 'free grace' theology. This view of conversion and salvation was opposed by John MacArthur and others who espouse 'lordship salvation'. Zane wrote several books on the idea which can still be found at Amazon. I also interacted with his work on textual issues. Hodges was a strong supporter of the Majority Text and was a big player, as I understand, in the translation of the New King James Version. He put out a Greek text according to the Majority Text that I have found helpful on occasion. His viewpoints are alive and well even though he has gone on to his reward. So people will be interacting with his views for some time to come.

Chafer on Rewards and Salvation

Continuing with a Chafer theme here, I was also reading about what Chafer has to say about rewards. In vol. 7 of his Systematic Theology, Chafer says this:

(begin Chafer quote)"Having saved a soul on the basis of grace . . . , God recognizes an indebtedness on His part to reward believers for their service to Him. . . What the believer has achieved for God He recognizes in faithfulness with rewards at the judgment seat of Christ."

Chafer then quotes Scofield approveingly, " . . . salvation is invariably spoken of as a free gift (various scriptures listed); while rewards are earned by works (scriptures listed)."

In his little book Salvation (p. 66), Chafer says: "Salvation is God's work for us. Rewards are always connected with the believer's works and merit."

What do you think about the mixture of a "grace" system and a "merit" system in the Christian life? Is there a dichotomy or can the two ideas be synthesized or integrated somehow?

Chafer on Grace

As some of you know, Lewis S. Chafer was the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and his Systematic Theology was formational and foundational for dispensational theology. A huge component of this theology is his understanding of grace and it's relationship with law. I discovered a perspective in his theology that included this comment in Volume 4, pages 162-4, under the category "Rules of Life in the Old Testament". To give you some context, he has been saying that God's bringing the people out of Egypt was an expression God's grace. He now continues:

(begin quote from Chafer) "Until that hour they had been sustained in the faithfulness of Jehovah and in spite of their wickedness; His plan and purpose for them had remained unchanged. He had dealt with them according to the unconditional covenant of grace made with Abraham. The marvelous blessedness of that grace-relationship should have appealed to them as the priceless riches of the unfailing mercy of God, which it was. The surrender of the blessings of grace should have been allowed by these people on no condition whatever. Had they said at the hearing of the impossible law, "None of these things can we do. We crave only to remain in that boundless mercy of God, who has loved us, and sought us, and saved us from all our enemies, and who will being us to Himself," it is evident that such an appeal would have reached the very heart of God. And the surpassing glory of His grace would have been extended to them without bounds; . . . In place of the eagles' wings by which they were carried unto God, they confidently chose a covenant of works when they said: "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." They were called upon to face a concrete choice between the mercy of God which had followed them, and a new and hopeless covenant of works. They fell from grace. . . . The children of Israel definitely chose the covenant of works, which is law, as their relationship to God" (end quote from Chafer)

Well, what do you think? When God gave the law to Israel gave the 10 commandments and the rest of the law on Mt. Sinai, was he giving them a choice that He actually hoped they wouldn't accept? Or is law somehow also an expression of grace? Or is there another option?

New Perspective on Paul

Well, we didn't have the theology group last Thursday. Hopefully some time in the future. I am going to try to put up some posts with either issues or quotes for folks to react to. I thought I would start with the new perspective on Paul.

I have found the NP on Paul helpful and so basically have a positive view toward it. I think that it gives a good corrective in the Christian understanding of Jewish religion both ancient and modern. It has helped me to resolve some tensions in Paul's view of the law. It has helped me make sense of some tough passages. I do not agree with everything that every NP writer proposes, but most of the basic ideas have been helpful.

So do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what are some of your concerns?

Creationism at This Point

The Sixth International Conference on Creationism was held August 3-7 in Pittsburgh, PA. This is probably the most significant regular gathering of creationist scientists in the world. Andrew Snelling with Answers in Genesis gave a talk there and discussed the present state of the creationist movement and creationist scholarship. Below are two slides from his presentation.



Fairly interesting. These pictures were taken by Jason Rosenhouse (an atheist evolutionist) who wrote several blog post reports as he attended the conference. Interesting perspectives.

Prayer for Fasting

I would never claim to be good at fasting. I don't do it often, and it has been a while since I did it. But when I was doing it more frequently, I wrote a prayer to recite while I was feeling hungry that helped me to focus on what I was doing and why I was doing it. Hope you find it stimulating if not helpful.

Loving Father,

Thank you for these feelings of hunger and weakness.

Meet me now in this discipline. Let me know the joy of your presence as you save me and change me, and as we fellowship together in this place.

Help me now to recall how Christ suffered these feelings for me so I could be saved; how the saints and martyrs suffered and grew in holiness and love; and how the poor and oppressed suffer this way daily through no fault of their own.

Help me to remember these things, Father, so that in this time of fasting I might grow in my awareness of how weak I am, and how dependent I am on your gifts, so that I might value my life with gratitude, contentment and joy.

Help me to remember these things so that I might grow in endurance and ability to deny myself, so that I might better resist temptations of the flesh.

Help me to remember these things so that I might deepen my relationship with you and others, and deepen my obedience to your commands.

And help me to remember these things so that I might grow in spiritual and mental strength, so that I might serve and obey you with greater clarity and resolve.

I ask for all these things as your will for my life through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

A Thought on Art

Art is the interpretive removal of something from it's real-life context.

The Glory of the Atonement - Theological Discussion Group Next Thursday!!!

I know that I'm stealing the title of this post from a book by that name, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III, but it says so well what I feel after having spent a week teaching Christology and ending with reflections on the atonement. The beautiful realities of what we have because of Christ's work on our behalf are indeed glorious and Scripture describes those realities in a myriad of ways. It seems to me that God revealed the glory of the atonement with so many images because none of them, standing alone, can capture that glory completely. But not everyone agrees with such an assessment. In my limited investigations, the larger part of contemporary evangelical theology seems to think that one of the images must serve as a controlling paradigm for all the rest. Here are a few examples that show this to be true:

Robert Letham, in his The Work of Christ from the IVP Contours of Christian Theology series, wonderfully describes 9 aspects of the the atonement that illustrate how magnificent was Christ's work on the cross. But only when he comes to the idea of penal substitution does he speak so categorically. "At the heart of the biblical doctrine of atonement is the idea of penal substitution." (p. 132)

In IVP's The Nature of the Atonement, edited by James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, three of the four contributing authors promote a different atonement image as the controlling paradigm. Greg Boyd says that the Christus Victor motif should serve that role. "All models of the atonement can be understood as distinctive aspects of one thing: overcoming evil with good ... Yes, Jesus died in our place, brought about or forgiveness, [and did all of the other things that various other atonement models proclaim that he did on the cross]. But, I submit, all these marvelous aspects of Christ's work can be understood, and are best understood, as distinctive aspects of the "rich variety" of God's "secret and hidden" wisdom by which he overcame evil with good and calls us to the same." (p. 45)

In the same work, Joel Green seems to show the promise of a view that would integrate the various models in his "kaleidoscopic view." However, in his other writings, in the formal presentation of his view and in his response to Thomas Schreiner's "penal substitutionary view," Green seems, at times to downplay, at times to reject the penal substitutionary view altogether. He says that the penal substitutionary view doesn't have the support of Church history, is based on an improper understanding of God's wrath, causes the inter-trinitarian life of God to break down, plus a whole host of other weaknesses that leave one thinking that the penal substitutionary view has no warrant being in the kaleidoscope. This integrative theory leaves a bit to be desired.

And so, when we come to next week's theological discussion group, be prepared to discuss which theory of the atonement should have pride of place among the others, if indeed you think that one should. Between now and then I plan to read Henri Blocher's, "Biblical Metaphors and the Doctrine of the Atonement" in the December 2004 issue of JETS. I'll be as prepared as possible to propose that a fully integrative atonement theory does the most justice to the glory of the atonement, but I'll be ready to be convinced otherwise. See you next Thursday.

I have been there

Some of you may have seen this already, but here is a quick video about cross-cultural communication. A pastor guy is preaching and a man from another country is translating. Just a reminder of how silly we Americans behave and how important it is to learn the language of the people we are speaking to.



And just for the grins of it, here is a video from the Expelled movie evolution creation thing that is pretty good. The faces that appear during the song are all famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers and a few more.

The Universe in One Year

Here is a little thing I did some time ago regarding the age of the universe. The idea comes from Carl Sagan who did it first. The most current estimate of the age of the universe according to secular scientists is 13.7 billion years. I know that some in the group agree with and most probably disagree with this estimate. Please feel free to use this information to argue either for or against the idea. But because 13.7 billion years is such a long time, it is difficult to get a sense of the relationship of early to current history. So I overlay the 13.7 billion on top of a year to get a proportional sense. Please feel free to correct the math if I made a mistake.

Assuming that the earth is 13.7 billion years old:
Then January first at 0:00 midnight begins the time period.

37,534,246.6 years is equivalent to one day.
1,563,926.9 years is equivalent to one hour.
26,065.4 years is equivalent to one minute.
And 434.42 years is equivalent to one second.

In the standard version of universal history, the earth was formed roughly 4.55 billion years ago. On the one-year calendar, that would mean that the earth was formed on September 1^st.

Larger than microscopic animals arose just before the Cambrian period some 542 million years ago, which in our calendar begins on December 18^th.

The dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, which would be during the day on December 30^th.

Jesus died on the cross roughly at 30 AD. On our calendar, that would be on December 31st at 11:59:55 PM.

Augustine lived on that same last day at 11:59:56 PM, and the Reformation was at 11:59:59 PM.

Well, there's a lot here. The most fascinating bits are, of course, that the earth doesn't even arrive on the scene until 8 full months have passed, and anything resembling animals doesn't show up until well into December. People don't show up until around the last 10 to 20 minutes of the last hour of the last day of the year. Crazy.

What would the theological implications of that "empty" time be if this were the true account of creation? Or does this simply show how that this version of the history of the universe cannot possibly be true according to the Bible and Christian theology?

Wright's response to Piper

Wanted to let folks who did not see it, there is a link on the N. T. Wright web page to an interview Wright gave at Asbury seminary. Ben Witherington was seated next to him along with a moderator and an older man, I think the president of the school or dean or something. Anyway, the interview is great, and in it, Wright responds to Piper's book critiquing Wright's view of justification. You can go to the link by clicking here, and then simply play the video.

Website Copier

Here is a recommended program that has been helpful to me. I visit some websites that are really archives, large collections of articles, like John Piper's website or the Talkorigins Archive. Slowly over time I check out quite a few of these articles, but there are times when I am not connected to the internet but would still like to be able to read at my own leisure.

Well, there is a program that is free to download that I have used called HTTrack website copier. Go to this link and you can download it. I don't know everything about how to use a lot of its features, but I have downloaded a few collections and it is helpful for me to have. So just a recommendation. Perhaps the more computer savvy could point out something dangerous here, but I have enjoyed using it.

Larry Norman

I don't know how meaningful this will be to many of you, but I was a little saddened to learn that Larry Norman died last Sunday night. He had apparently been sick for some time. I have listened to Larry Norman since I was very young, from "I wish we'd all been ready" to "Watch what you're doin'". He was kinda wild, a little wierd (especially after the accident and head injury), but he was a pioneer in Christian music. I am glad he is home with his Lord.