In his recent post, Values and Moral Truth are Not the Same, Albert Mohler discusses the transition in our society from one of morals to one of "values". Quoting Mohler:
Once the "church" decided it was ok to throw out the first portions of the first book for the Bible given secular scientists "discoveries" about the "actual" age of the earth, we completely lost our moral footing. Gone is the very reason for life (to love and worship God who made us in His own image), sexuality (man created male and female, the man leaving his family to cleave to his wife), family (established for man to be fruitful and multiply), marriage (between one man and one woman alone) or moral responsibility (yes, you are accountable to a just God for your actions). Without a solid foundation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it's not surprising that the postmodern philosophists in our society are winning.
It's instructive to view how first Peter and then Paul framed their sermons to different groups in the book of Acts. In Acts chapter 2, you have Peter speaking to Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
Is it not interesting to note that Paul does not primarily preach the gospel message to the Athenians, he preaches Genesis 2, 3 and 11 before even mentioning, in his final 2 sentences, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Paul sets his moral authority by declaring that there is, indeed, a God in heaven. This is the God who formed each and every one of those listening to him, and that one day, God who will, one day, judge the world in righteousness.
Our culture is much more like the Athenians than it is the Jews in Jerusalem. We have lost our own "moral absolutes" by allowing secular society to chip away at the very foundation of the gospel message. If Genesis 1-11 is not true, if it's not history, then how can anyone be certain of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of Romans, Galatians?
"Values reflect only a subjective dimention with no objective moral truth. A generation raised in the incubator of moral relativism is groping for enduring truth in the moral wilderness."Now, I agree completely with Dr. Mohler on this issue. Where we fall down is on where we place the blame for this societal decline. He cites an abdication of moral leadership of Christians as a root cause of this shift. I would argue that an abdication of the specific authority of the Bible to teach in all areas is the root cause here. What do I mean? Well, in particular, Genesis chapters 1 through 11 specifically address all of the areas specified by Dr. Mohler: life, sexuality, family, marriage and moral responsibility.
Once the "church" decided it was ok to throw out the first portions of the first book for the Bible given secular scientists "discoveries" about the "actual" age of the earth, we completely lost our moral footing. Gone is the very reason for life (to love and worship God who made us in His own image), sexuality (man created male and female, the man leaving his family to cleave to his wife), family (established for man to be fruitful and multiply), marriage (between one man and one woman alone) or moral responsibility (yes, you are accountable to a just God for your actions). Without a solid foundation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, it's not surprising that the postmodern philosophists in our society are winning.
It's instructive to view how first Peter and then Paul framed their sermons to different groups in the book of Acts. In Acts chapter 2, you have Peter speaking to Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost.
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it...This Jesus, God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Acts 2:22-24,32,36 (ESV)That's a pretty straightforward gospel message being preached. Now, contrast that with Paul, preaching to the Athenians at the Areopagus in Acts chapter 17:
"Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, To the unknown god.
"What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined alloted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each of us, for in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said, For we are indeed his offspring.
"Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance ot all by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:22b-31 (ESV)
Is it not interesting to note that Paul does not primarily preach the gospel message to the Athenians, he preaches Genesis 2, 3 and 11 before even mentioning, in his final 2 sentences, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Paul sets his moral authority by declaring that there is, indeed, a God in heaven. This is the God who formed each and every one of those listening to him, and that one day, God who will, one day, judge the world in righteousness.
Our culture is much more like the Athenians than it is the Jews in Jerusalem. We have lost our own "moral absolutes" by allowing secular society to chip away at the very foundation of the gospel message. If Genesis 1-11 is not true, if it's not history, then how can anyone be certain of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of Romans, Galatians?
"If the foundations are destroyed,Dr. Mohler, as the leader of the pre-eminent Southern Baptist seminary in the country, please stand up and proclaim the truth of the Bible from the very first book! Genesis desperately needs to be preached to our nation.
what can the righteous do?
The LORD is in his holy temple;
the LORD'S throne is in heaven;" Psalms 11:3-4a (ESV)
5 comments:
Dear Inquisitor:
“If Genesis 1-11 is not true, if it's not history, then how can anyone be certain of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of Romans, Galatians?”
First off, let me introduce myself. I am an born-again believer in Jesus Christ and hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. I also don’t believe that the earth is young.
You ask two questions in the above quote, one valid, and one specious. “If Genesis 1-11 is not true”. If Genesis is not true, then we are “most to be pitied”, to borrow from the Apostle Paul. There are many of us old-earthers that hold the truth of the Bible from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Christology teaches us that the “Word became truth and dwelled among us” (John 1:14) That word is sacred and is Truth. On the night of His betrayal, Christ prayed Your word is Truth (John 17:17) . Christ doesn’t say “Your word is the truth”, but says the word itself is truth.
But then you add if it’s not history, how can we be certain… How, by understanding the propose of the Bible and realizing that portions of the Bible portray truth in various forms, some in poetry, some in allegory, some in parables. I personally believe Genesis 1 is best summed up in the first four words In the beginning, God . . .. Genesis 1 is a God created in a uniform, orderly fashion the world we now inhabit. That is the truth of Genesis 1 that very very few believers doubt.
The Bible is the progressive revelation of God’s love toward mankind. There are parts of the Bible that are history, there are parts that are allegorical, and there are parts that are parables. They all point to the fundamental that God is the one to be served.
I am a bit amused by the Answers in Genesis crowd. they say on their web page:
There is an intensifying controversy in the church all over the world regarding the ge of the earth. For the first 18 centuries of church history, the almost universal belief of Christians was that God created the world in six literal days roughly 4,000 years before Christ and destroyed the world with a global Flood at the time of Noah.
But about 200 years ago some scientists developed new theories of earth history, which proposed that the earth and universe are millions of years old. Over the past 200 years Christian leaders have made various attempts to fit the millions of years into the Bible. These include the day-age view, gap theory, local flood view, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, and progressive creation.
OK, we know that the Church for 1300 years held that the earth was the center of the universe. People like Galileo and Copernicus were called heretics for stating the Earth was not the center of the universe or that the Earth was flat. Was the Church wrong. Most of us have seen pictures of the earth from space. The Earth is not flat, there are no pillars holding up the earth (Job 9:6 and Psalms 75:3)
When we hold to something that, on the surface appears to be patently wrong (a flat Earth), we delude ourselves and do the gospel no good. If you and I were to sit down and discuss our perception of the Truth of Genesis 1, who do you think has a more plausible viewpoint in the eyes of a non-believer? I can explain, without compromising either Scripture or science, an objective truth (and I do make that a small t) about creation and the providence and immanence of God. Before you get to that point, you are going to have to overcome the perceived absurdity of a young earth.
Once the "church" decided it was ok to throw out the first portions of the first book for the Bible. Woa! Who in the Church threw out any of the Bible? Dr. Mohler sure didn’t. He may not interpret scripture the way you want it interpreted, but aren’t you being a bit hard on the man. Your side and the old-earth believers do not disagree on the fundamental truth of scripture. We disagree of how certain scriptures are to be understood. Your “my way or the highway” viewpoint is a bit narrow and appears to make Dr. Mohler and I heretics. I freely admit I have not absolute knowledge of how the earth was created, but I am open enough to see that maybe our views of a young earth, or a flat earth, might possibly be wrong and will not martyr the poor soul that wants to circumnavigate the world.
Sometimes, Mr. Inquisitor, the scientists are right. Sometimes we sail west to get east. Could God have created the Earth in 6 days? Of course! Did He? All the evidence we see via scientific means (and remember, God gave is a brain to use) says no. Did God create both providentially and immanently ex nihilo? Yes, clearly he did
Old-Earther
Dear Old-Earther,
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my post! Let's look at some of your concerns. . .
In your rush to explain away Genesis 1-11 as poetry, allegory or fable, you miss a very important point. Jesus himself referenced the events in Genesis as historical fact. He treated Adam and Eve as an historic, married couple (Matt 19:3-6 and Mark 10:3-9), Abel as a martyred prophet (Luke 11:50-51). He referred to Noah and Flood as literal history, and as an example of what the wrath of God poured out on mankind looks like. He did not allegorize these accounts, he took them as historical fact. He used these events, which were understood by the people to whom he was speaking as historical, to shore up their faith that His own coming death, burial, resurrection and return would also be true historical facts.
According to Dr. Ray Bohlin, executive director of Probe Ministries, "Genesis 1-11 are quoted or referred to more than 100 times in the New Testament alone. And it is over these chapters that the primary battle for the historicity of Genesis rages...Jesus himself, on six different occasions, refers to each one of the first seven chapters of Genesis, thus affirming His believe in their historical nature."
So, if Jesus himself believed in Genesis as history, who are we?
I would agree with your point that Genesis 1 is best summed up with the opening sentence, "In the beginning, God..." However, if you wish to marry Genesis 1 with secular science, you must remember that it is more than just a matter of time. The order is all wrong as well. Genesis says the Earth formed before the Sun. Science says the Sun formed first. Neither position can be proven scientifically. Genesis says that the Earth was created covered with water. Secular science posits a hot, molten ball of magma which gradually cooled. Neither position can be proven scientifically.
If we say that Genesis 1 does not indicate a specific 6-day week because Genesis 1 is poetic, allegorical, or stands as a parable, then what are we to do with Exodus 20:11? This is interpreting scripture with scripture. Something we are called upon to do.
I'm glad you posted the bit from AiG, it saves me from having to cite it myself, because it's just true. You do, however, make a flawed logical leap by saying, in effect, "If those people were wrong, then you must be wrong, too!" You know, there's an adage that I even heard espoused at MRBC which says something like, "If you think you have some new revelation on the meaning of some scripture, you're probably wrong." Why do we lend such authority to people in just the last 200 years?
We as Christians in this era have lost sight of the fact that the whole Bible is the story, not just the New Testament. The Gospel story finds its root, its foundation, in the Old Testament. An old-earth perspective might indeed be more "plausible" in the eyes of a non-believer who has been hammered by evolutionary thinking his entire life. Does that make it right? I seem to recall Paul saying that "I am not ashamed of the gospel."
We have thrown out the first portions of Genesis. We just have. We've taken secular science's "word" for it that they've determined the "age" of the Earth and of the universe. That's an interesting claim, actually, because "age" is not a property of matter which can be "measured" in the truest sense. The best one can do is make reasoned, logical guesses given the evidence.
What is your view of how God created? Progressive creationism? Theistic Evolution?
It's getting late. I look forward to your response.
Seth, this post was a good one! Very thought provoking!
Yogi
Yogi,
Thanks for the thumbs up! I'm still pretty new at this apologetics thing, and even newer at formal writing, to say nothing of formally written defenses of my theological musings. All that to say, please bear with me, and don't laugh too hard.
Seth
Seth,
After a long absence on my own blog (I actually posted something last night) I decided to stop by and help get the conversation flowing over here as well.
So, here's my thought. I think that you and Dr. Mohler have very good points. Each are spot on, but you are addressing different issues. On the one hand, the loss of moral absolutes by believers (in the Christian community) is a result of their abdication of the Bible as a source of absolute authority. When you view what God presents as how He made the heavens and the earth as allegory, that Adam and Eve were merely symbols, etc... you have a recipe for wishy-washy ethics and morality. This type of thinking has led to a redefinition of the Gospel and true Christianity by liberal theologians.
I think Dr. Mohler is addressing a different issue. He seems to be dealing with the loss of leadership from Christians in the market place. We've taken the backseat in the public eye instead of standing up for absolute morals. We've allowed the values-driven thinkers to lead the charge. When you stop saying, "This is right, and this is wrong" and begin teaching, "What is right for you? Don't judge what's right for the student next to you," then society is heading for disaster. Dr. Mohler seems to be issuing a call to Bible believing, Genesis loving, Gospel centered people to action.
So, I think you are both right. One problem is that liberalism has abandoned their own source of absolute truth and authority, including the opening chapters of the Bible. Furthermore, there need to be more Christians to unashamedly stand up and battle against the values-driven morality. As Dr. Mohler says, "A generation raised in the incubator of moral relativism is groping for enduring truth in the moral wilderness." We can be the ones to point them to Living Water which always satisfies.
Your thoughts?
Post a Comment