Dr. Al Mohler: No Pass From Theological Responsibility — The BioLogos Conundrum
The following article by Dr. Al Mohler struck me as being eerily similar to the long winded debate over homosexuality.
They are also clear about their motive. In their view, the acceptance of evolution is necessary for evangelism. They are motivated, they insist, by a concern that a rejection of evolution puts Christians in a position of intellectual embarrassment. The rejection of evolution places Christians outside the intellectual pale, they assert, leading to the discrediting of the gospel. They believe that intellectuals, especially scientists, will not respect an evangelistic witness to the gospel from one who is intellectually discredited by rejecting evolution. They are embarrassed by the fact that a majority of evangelicals reject evolution, and they honestly believe that some people will not come to know Christ because they are so offended by our unwillingness to accept evolution. They have repeatedly asserted that the credibility and integrity of our Christian witness is at stake.
The writers for BioLogos have been unsparing in their criticism of evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or are proponents of either Intelligent Design or creationism. They initiated a public debate by presenting their arguments in the public square. But now, it appears, they really do not want a public debate at all. They want a one-way conversation.
On November 8, an article appeared at the BioLogos site that was explicitly addressed to me. The author, Mark Sprinkle, had courteously informed me by e-mail on November 7 that the article would appear the next day. And so it did.
In his article, Dr. Sprinkle uses the account of Peter and Cornelius from Acts 10 to argue that “our theology is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is our collective and halting attempt to describe in coherent terms what we know of God by what we have seen of His acts and what we have read in His Word—and, above all else, by what we have seen in the acts of the Word, Jesus.” That argument points very clearly in the direction of minimizing theology and doctrine, but it is also false. Unless a church forfeits all doctrinal responsibility, at least some theology is always prescriptive.
But theology, he argues, “is put to the test not just by our logic, but by the witness of what God is doing in our lives and in the lives of others around the world.” He then states this: “Evidence of the Spirit at work is the only true measure we have of our theology; all other measures, including whether it fits our carefully-reasoned arguments of who is in and who is out, are vanity.”
That is an interesting statement, but it is nonsensical unless there is some means of evaluating what is and is not authentic evidence of the Spirit at work. And that, of course, would mean some kind of biblical and theological test. The effort to escape theology gets us nowhere.
Isn’t it interesting that the evolution argument presented here follows the same path that has been tread for years in the homosexuality debate - denigrate anyone who opposes you without regard to facts and require the total restructuring of the Faith in order to allow the “new order” to be ushered in by the enlightened.
I agree with Dr. Mohler—debate is always welcome but there can be no pass from theological responsibility. He deserves our thanks for standing for Truth - something that seems all too rare in Tec these days..
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- Former Mars Hill Elder challenges leadership culture under Driscoll
- (updated) [Oz] Bishop Sarah Macneil Conducted Same-Sex “Blessing” While Diocesan Archdeacon
- The Most Important Issue in the World
- Menlo Park Presbyterian Church to Vote Sunday on Leaving PCUSA for ECO, Despite $8.89 Million Fee
- Keeping the Main Thing Completely Peripheral
- [Oz] Rev. Rod Bower: “I don’t believe in heaven or hell…”
- All the Hate That Fits (UPDATED)
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.