There are obviously many who believe that evolution is the mechanism that God used to create the variety of life on this planet. However, for those of us who are serious about the supremacy of Scripture, it is essential that any apparent theological tensions that arise from this are rigorously reviewed. It would be premature to say the least to commit to a scientific position without having a clearly worked out theology that accords with it, particularly when so much of the scientific evidence does not necessitate a Darwinian explanation.¹

The implication here is that theists who suggest that God used or could have used evolution as a mechanism are not serious about the supremacy of Scripture, and that they have not worked out the theological tensions that arise as a result of this suggestion — why ought we think this? We shouldn’t. But there is another problem, and it concerns the vagueness of the world evolution and a confusion between Darwinian evolution and evolution. First, theistic evolutionists are not Darwinian evolutionists; they do not share the beliefs and opinions of Darwin concerning evolution. Second, no one disagrees with the reality (readily demonstrable) of adaptation, or what some have come to call micro evolution. Third, while we might safely assume that the authors of Should Christians Embrace Evolution have Darwinian evolution in mind when they speak of evolution, this is not the correct approach when discussing the views presented by theistic evolutionists. Even in Darwin’s lifetime there were “Darwinians” who held views different from or downright contrary to those of Darwin; this is the case today as well.

Related posts:

1. The Search for Answers and Meaning
2. God and Evolution

Months of the Year

Days of the Week

Numbers: 1 — 10

…When atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then theistic evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0¹.

What interests me most are the equations, followed by Grudem’s mention of atheists. Concerning the first equation: what does an atheist mean when he says “matter + evolution + 0 = all living things”? He means that the evolutionary process is sufficient in and of itself to produce “all living things”. But what does a theist mean when he says “matter + evolution + God = all living things”? He means that the evolutionary process is not sufficient in and of itself to produce “all living things”; the evolutionary process must either be initiated by God, directed by God, or both.  Elsewhere Grudem speaks of theists “tacking God” onto evolutionary theory², but this certainly is not what they are doing, and should such a theist hear what Grudem has to say, I imagine he would be rather displeased at the suggestion. It was further suggested by Grudem that if theistic evolution is accepted, then God would not be the “omnipotent God who in his infinite wisdom  directly created all living things, but as the indivisible deity who makes absolutely no detectable  difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today.“³ But certainly the theist would protest that an omnipotent God is exactly the sort of God necessary for evolution; a God who is directly involved in the creation and development of all living things; for this very reason evolution would not make God invisible but perhaps more visible than he’s ever been. I am not a theistic evolutionist, my primary concern here is that they are being unfairly represented.

What then of Grudem’s mention of atheists? Before I comment on this, I want to return briefly to the claims Grudem made earlier regarding the adoption of evolution. He has said that adopting theistic evolution leads to the following beliefs, contrary to Scripture:

• Adam and Eve were not the first human beings
• Other humans had already been try­ing to wor­ship and seek God in their own way
• Adam was not spe­cially cre­ated by God
• Eve was not spe­cially cre­ated by God
• Not every­one can be traced back to Adam and Eve
• Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin
• Death was a fea­ture of orig­i­nal creation
• God did not alter the nat­ural world because of Adam’s sin

The question I’m going to concern myself with is this: what of the above can be found in theistic evolutionary theory, and what is theology or philosophy? What part of theistic evolutionary theory, for example, states that “ancestral humans tried to worship and seek God in their own way”? What part states that “Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin”, or that “God did not alter the natural world because of Adam’s sin”? These statements are what Grudem believes to be the theological implications of theistic evolutionary theory. There might exist a theistic evolutionist, for instance, who does not believe that theistic evolution leads to these conclusions. He might believe that other humans did not try to worship and seek God on their own. He might believe that Adam and Eve’s sin was the first sin (e.g. by virtue of the special revelation given to Adam and Eve by God, as some have claimed); and they might believe that the natural world was altered, just perhaps not in the way understood by classical theists. In any case, we are either dealing here with evolution or theistic evolution. What we are not dealing with atheistic evolution, or more correctly naturalistic evolution. If we were we might imagine the bullet points to read “there is no God” or “there is no such thing as sin” or “the natural world has not been altered”.

Coming back to Grudem’s use of the word atheist, it would seem he has done a poor job at separating the issues, which are these:

1. Evolution
2. Creationism
3. Theistic evolution
4. Naturalistic evolution

Evolution conflicts with creationism; theistic evolution conflicts with naturalistic evolution; theistic evolutionists are creationists of an evolutionary sort; naturalistic evolutionists aren’t, and fall back solely on evolutionary theory. “When atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things” then what we’re dealing with isn’t evolution, but naturalistic evolution; evolution with philosophical baggage. These issues must be kept distinct, or else these issues will never be properly addressed.

Related posts:

1. Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
2. Micro– and macro-evolution
3. On Words, Meaning and Implications

Related posts:

1. Definition of a Religion

Word List

1. “est”, meaning “is” or “east”.
2. “comme”, meaning “like”, “as” or “how”.
3. “un” (m) / “une” (f), meaning “a(n)” or “one”.
4. “grand”, meaning “great”.
5. “vide”, meaning “empty” or “void”.
6. “Elle”, meaning “it” (f) or “she”.
7. “dans”, meaning “in”.
8. “nuit”, meaning “night” or “darkness”.
9. “eau”, meaning “water”.
10. “profonde”, meaning “deep”, “depth” or “profound”.
11. “recouvre”, meaning “to cover”.
12. “souffle”, meaning “breath”.
13. “de”, meaning “of”, “from”, “to”, “by”, etc.
14. “se”, meaning “himself”, “herself”, “themselves”, “oneself”, etc.
15. “tient”, meaning “have”, “hold”, ‘keep” or “stay”.
16. “dessus”, meaning “on top of”, or “over”.
17. “l’eau”, meaning “the water”.

The literal translation of v.2 would then be, ” The earth is like a great void. It is in the night / darkness. A water deep the cover. The breath of God himself stayed on top of the water”. Cleaning this up a bit, we get, “The earth is like a great void. It is in the darkness. A deep water (is over / covered) the surface. The breath of God himself stayed on top of the water.” I suppose this is one of those instances where the entire thought is considered, rather than the words per-se. Still, this seems rather clumsy. Let’s compare with Louis Segond.

Genèse 1:2
2 La terre était informe et vide: il y avait des ténèbres à la surface de l’abîme, et l’esprit de Dieu se mouvait au-dessus des eaux.

Word List

1. “était”, meaning “was”.
2. “informe”, meaning “shapeless” or “formless”.
3. “il y avait”, meaning “there was”.
4. “ténèbres”, meaning “darkness” or “night” (having a connotation of evil).
5. “à la”, meaning “to the”, “on the” or “at the”.
6. “abîme”, meaning “abyss” or “gulf”.
7. “esprit”, meaning “spirit” or “mind”.
8. “mouvait”, meaning “moved”.
9. “eaux”, meaning “waters”.
10. “surface”, meaning… “surface”.

This translation reads, “The earth was formless and void: there was the (evil) darkness on the surface of the gulf, and the spirit of God himself moved on top of the waters”. Cleaned up: “The earth was formless and void: there was darkness on the surface of the gulf, and the spirit of God moved on top of the waters”. Not much, and much better than the rendition offered by the “Parole de Vie”. Two verses in, I prefer the Louis Segond.

Let’s compare the various translations:

(NASB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

(Parole de Vie)

1. In the beginning, God create the heaven and the earth.
2. The earth is like a great void. It is in the darkness. A deep water (is over / covered) the surface. The breath of God himself stayed on top of the water.

(Louis Segond)

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was formless and void: there was darkness on the surface of the abyss, and the spirit of God moved on top of the waters.

I suppose the idea with the Parole de Vie, is that the total thought is what matters, rather than the words themselves. One thing that is lost to me is why this translation insists on the present tense (the earth was formless, it is not now formless). If we were to judge these two translations just by how they rendered one of the initial clauses of the Bible, Louis Segond would win in my book. It will be interesting to see if the situation changes as more Scripture is examined.

Related posts:

1. Genèse 1:1
2. Raining

My solution is to read Scripture in French, then translate back into English. This way I hope to: (1) have a better grasp of French; (2) have a better understanding of Scriptural translation (both French and English); and (3) spend more time reading / studying Scripture. I have the aid of the internet, various dictionaries, and a French pastor (who is also my wife!). I will be comparing two French translations with each other — the Louis Segond and “La Bible Parole de Vie” — and with the NASB. Let’s begin with Genesis 1:1!

Genèse 1:1
1 Au commencement, Dieu crée le ciel et la terre. (La Bible Parole de Vie)

Word List:

1. “Au” (a contraction of à and le), meaning “to the”, “for the” or “at the” (also “in the”).
2. “commencement”, meaning “beginning” or “start”.
3. “Dieu” meaning “God”.
4. “crée”, meaning “to create”.
5. “le”, meaning “the” (m); “la”, meaning “the” (f)
6. “ciel”, meaning “sky or heaven”.
7. “et”, meaning “and”.
8. “terre”, meaning “earth” or “soil”.

The literal translation of v. 1 would then be, “At / In the beginning, God create the heaven and the earth”. It should be noted that the older “Louis Segond” translation uses “créa” instead of “crée”. The former (créa) means something much more along the lines of “created”, while “crée” means, as noted above, “create”. In fact, lets compare this translation with the Louis Segond:

Genèse 1:1
1 Au commencement, Dieu créa les cieux et la terre. (Louis Segond)

Word List (only two additions)

1. “les”, which is the plural form of “the” (m / f).
2. “cieux”, which is the plural form of heaven, or sky.

This translation reads, “At / In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. (Note: my wife tells me that the Louis Segond translation is similar to the English KJV, whereas the “Parole de Vie” is similar to the English NIV). Thus it would appear that the Louis Segond is closer to the NASB, ESV, and other translations, making it preferable in this instance. I am a bit of a loss as to why the PDV uses “crée” instead of “créa”. In the next post, we’ll discuss v.2.

• Adam and Eve were not the first human beings
• Other humans had already been trying to worship and seek God in their own way
• Adam was not specially created by God
• Eve was not specially created by God
• Not everyone can be traced back to Adam and Eve
• Adam and Eve’s sin was not the first sin
• Death was a feature of original creation
• God did not alter the natural world because of Adam’s sin²

Consequently, the Christian who adopts theistic evolutionary views must abandon traditional Christian belief concerning the following:

• Belief in the truthfulness of Genesis 1 — 3, the “foundational chapters of the entire bible”.
• Belief in the unity of the human race.
• Belief in the ontological uniqueness of human beings.
• Belief in the parallel between condemnation through representation by Adam and salvation through representation by Christ.
• Belief in the goodness of God’s original creation.
• Belief that suffering and death today are the result of sin and not part of God’s original creation.
• Belief that natural disasters today are the result of the fall and not part of God’s original creation.³

It would seem that historic Christianity lives or dies with the acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory. Over the next few weeks / months I’ll be reading Should Christians Embrace Evolution, and while doing so I’ll be posting my thoughts on (some of?) the arguments presented. When I’m done I’ll provide my final thoughts in the form of a book review. This should be rather interesting, if the high praise others have given this book is indeed accurate.

Related posts:

1. God and Evolution
2. Micro– and macro-evolution
3. On Words, Meaning and Implications

The reason is mostly this: spam. There have been 576 legitimate comments since I first started writing, and 10, 928 illegitimate comments. There are times when legitimate comments are flagged as illegitimate, and vice-versa. It is too much of a task having to sort through hundreds of spam messages just in case someone other than a bot has posted something. I will now only be allowing comments on articles that I deem are ‘worth it’ — you will know which articles these are, because they will have a ‘comments’ link in the post header. If you have thoughts on an article I haven’t allowed comments on, and want those thoughts posted, please contact me and I will do so for you.

Otherwise, I increasingly find the level of discourse ‘online’ to be of low quality. Given some of the topics I discuss, I want no part of that.

Before I continue I must note that the copy of Christian Apologetics sent to me by Intervarsity Press appears to be an uncorrected manuscript. Please keep that in mind while reading the review that follows, as any shortcomings I might note (if there are any) may be corrected before publication — unfortunately, I have no way of knowing.
 

Thoughts on Part One: Apologetic Preliminaries

The first section of Christian Apologetics is titled “Apologetic Preliminaries”, and explains the biblical basis for apologetics, what apologetics is, Groothuis’ methodology, and sets the stage for the arguments we’ll encounter in favor of Christian theism (in section 2 “The Case for Christian theism”).

If you’re unfamiliar with or new to apologetics, then this first section is required reading. If, however, you’ve followed the likes of William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan and others, then chances are that Groothuis will be covering familiar territory. For example, chapter three, “Evaluating Worldviews”, is reminiscent of Francis Schaeffer or Nancy Pearcy. Chapter four, “The Christian Worldview”, explains what the Christian worldview is. Chapters six and seven — “Truth defined and defended” and “Why Truth Matters Most” — criticize(s) some of the most common features of postmodernism, specifically the postmodern view of truth. Important topics to be sure, but no groundbreaking material in terms of what Groothuis has to say about them. “Apologetic Preliminaries” is well written, if at times repetitive; it’s methodical, touches upon the issues that need discussing to set a proper foundation for the book, and clearly delineates where Groothuis is heading. As an introduction to the rest of the book and apologetics, it works well.

Thoughts on Part Two: The Case for Christian Theism

Having introduced and defended apologetic methodology, Groothuis begins part two (starting at ch. 9) with a defense of natural theology. This lays the foundation for the bulk of our authors ‘case for biblical faith’.

Groothuis begins with the ontological (ch. 10), cosmological (ch. 11) and teleological arguments (ch. 12) for God’s existence. Each chapter follows the same basic pattern. A brief history of the (respective) argument is given, the argument is then presented in full and defended against the most popular / substantive objections that have been presented through history. Groothuis then changes focus to discuss the implications of Darwinism (ch. 13) and the intelligent design movement (ch. 14). This latter chapter on intelligent design interacts quite a bit with the writings of Michael Behe (irreducible complexity) and William Dembski (specified complexity) — you’ll know what to expect if you’ve read both these authors. In chapter 15 Groothuis discusses the moral argument for God’s existence, arguing in part that an objective morality presupposes God.

Chapter 16 is called the ‘argument from religious experience,’ and argues for the supernatural on the basis that all peoples and cultures express religious inclinations. Building on this foundation, Groothuis argues that the uniqueness of humanity (ch. 17) — specifically consciousness and cognition — can only be explained by means of supernatural creation, as a materialistic rise of life cannot account for what we see of human peoples. Chapter 18 is an interesting explanation of Pascal’s ‘Anthropological Argument’, that man yearns for greatness is one of the most telling indicators of his fall from grace, from a higher state. This is probably the most unique argument in the book, as I haven’t read it repeated elsewhere. Chapter 19 is written by Craig L. Bloomberg and presents a defense for the historical Jesus, while chapters 20, 21 and 23 are devoted to the ‘claims, credentials and achievements’ of Jesus, the incarnation and the resurrection (of Jesus) respectively.

Coming in at just under 400 pages, this second part of Christian Apologetics is the bulk of Groothuis’ ‘case’. The question is, is it effective?

Well, that depends on what Groothuis was trying to achieve. Whole books have been written on ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments. Whole books have been written on the historicity of Jesus, the incarnation and the resurrection. To write on all these topics in just under 400 pages results in an argument which reads much like an introduction (survey?) to these subjects rather than a ‘comprehensive case for biblical faith’. That is simply the reality of having so little space to work with considering the subject matter.

I think it’s safe to say, then, that Groothuis has quite clearly shown the need for (and biblical basis of) apologetics, but what follows reads more like an academic ‘course-text’ than an argument. As a ‘case’ it’s an alright enough place to begin, but I think more could have been said.

Thoughts on Part Three: Objections to Christian Theism

The last four chapters of Christian Apologetics (comprising section three) follow the same format as part two. In chapter 23, Religious Pluralism, Groothuis addresses the challenge of religious pluralism, perennial philosophy, etc. Chapter 24, Apologetics and the Challenge of Islam, briefly examines the Islamic system of belief, comparing it against the Christian scriptures to determine the truth of its (Islams) system. Finally, Groothuis ends with a discussion of the various answers to the problem of evil (ch. 25) and what this book means practically (ch. 26).

Additionally, there is an appendix containing two more chapters, one on the apologetic problem of Hell and the other, contributed by Richard Hess, focuses on the apologetic and interpretive problems of the Old Testament (i.e. the questionable ‘moral’ worth of some aspects of the Old Testament).

Concluding Thoughts

In closing, there are two ‘concerns’ I have with Christian Apologetics, and it’s more a problem with me than with the book. The first is that as I was reading, I kept thinking to myself, “I’ve read this before…” and the feeling never really went away. I don’t think this is a book for people already read-up on apologetics — it is more for those taking an apologetics course, or who self-study or are otherwise unaware of apologetics.

My second concern is that it seems like more could have been said. I realize the book is already quite large, and I wonder if more should have been said about less (topics).

In any case, much like I recommend William Lane Craig’s On Guard or Reasonable Faith to those looking to enter into apologetics, I likewise recommend Groothuis’ book. A word of warning to those already initiated, aside from Pascal, you might not find many new things said.

A thank you to the people at Intervarsity Press for providing me with a copy of Christian Apologetics for review purposes.

Related posts:

1. Interview with Dr. Douglas Groothuis on his upcoming book, “Christian Apologetics”
2. Book Review: The Christian Delusion ed. John W. Loftus
3. Book Review: Doing Philosophy as a Christian

“What makes a good leader? There are three practical things: preparation, experience, and pain. A leader who hasn’t suffered is not worth following. Hope only grows in the soil of pain, and leadership without hope is weakened because leaders live in the hope that things will change.“¹

I remember hearing a story once; I think Brennan Manning was the one who told it. It concerned a would-be lover, who told the object of his love that he loved her. She responded by asking, “Do you know what hurts me?” To which our would-be lover said, “Well, no, not really…” Then, replied the girl, how can you say you love me, if you don’t know what hurts me?

There is a lot that could be said about pain and suffering; have you ever wondered why so many focus on Jesus’ sharing our pain? But that is a topic for another day. Today our topic is Every Leader’s Everest, a book on insecurity and leadership by Pastor Jim Molloy of the PAOC (Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada).

Our author begins with an excellent principle, and it’s apparent from the stories he recounts that he’s had his fair share of pain and suffering. So Jim is worth listening to, but is there value (read: wisdom) in his words?

This isn’t a long book, which is nice (I just finished reading a 720 page tome). It deals with  aspects of character in relation to leadership (it should be noted that people are insecure, not the concept of leadership): insecurity, reliance, pain, gifts, arrogance, bitterness, the roots of these things and the remedy — or at least the road to recovery. Each topic is addressed out of Jim’s experience: his encounters, and the way he’s dealt with his own insecurity (and the insecurity of others). This is one of those books you can read in an afternoon, but are always coming back to because Jim’s quite clever, and has fit a lot of good material in a very small space. It’s like a TARDIS, almost.

So, is there wisdom in Jim’s words? This, thankfully, isn’t an ivory-tower self-help book (if it were, I imagine Jim would be pictured on the front — sharp suit, sleek hair, indications of success in the background… Charlatan with sound-bite advice). This is a book that you can tell is rooted in Jim’s experience over his many years in ministry. It’s concise, to the point, and says what needs to be said. I never once felt as if he said too much, or said too little. It’s a practical book on leadership written out of practical ministry. There is no theorizing that isn’t matched with experience. There is wisdom here.

Everyone is insecure (I’m incredibly insecure), and if you’re willing to acknowledge that you are, then this is a worthy read. It’s one of those books you can finish and not feel as if you wasted your time. All in all, this is a book I feel safe in recommending. Here are some links for you:

Jim’s Blog: http://leaderscripts.wordpress.com/
Buy the book: http://74.53.130.96/~jim/LeaderScripts_Store/Every_Leaders_Everest.html

Related posts:

1. Book Review: Making Sense of Suffering by Peter Kreeft
2. Book Review: The Invisible World by Anthony Destefano
3. Book Review: The Unaborted Socrates by Peter Kreeft