What ever happened to inspiration?
April 19, 2011
That is what I wonder when I read Karl Giberson and the other folks at Biologos. The mission of Biologos is to help the church embrace theistic evolution. Part of that project is to reject the historicity of Adam and Eve, the fall, the flood and a great many other events recorded in the Bible. Of course, this cannot be done apart from a diminished view of the Bible's inspiration. To help this along, last year Biologos ran a series of articles by Kent Sparks savaging the doctrine of the Bible's inerrancy. The message is clear: "We love the Bible, but only the true bits. Those parts of the Bible that are intellectually unsatisfying for us must be rejected."
Al Mohler comments on a recent article by Dr. Giberson published by CNN's Belief Blog and a new book coauthored by Francis Collins and Giberson entitled The Language of Science and Faith.
Al Mohler comments on a recent article by Dr. Giberson published by CNN's Belief Blog and a new book coauthored by Francis Collins and Giberson entitled The Language of Science and Faith.
In his new book, The Language of Science and Faith, written with Francis S. Collins, readers will find this strange paragraph:Read the entire post HERE.
Biblical interpretation falls short without an understanding of biblical inspiration, of course, as we do not suggest that the Bible is simply another book to be interpreted. But we do a great disservice to the concept and power of inspiration when we reduce it to mere factual accuracy, as though God’s role were nothing more than a divine fact checker, preventing the biblical authors from making mistakes. A dead and lifeless text, like the phone book, can be factually accurate. The inspiration of the Bible is dynamic and emerges through engagement with readers.
That paragraph is, quite simply, one of the most ridiculous statements concerning the Bible one might ever imagine. Who has ever argued that the divine inspirationof the Bible is reduced to “mere factual accuracy”? Giberson’s dismissive language about God as “nothing more than a divine fact checker” is sheer nonsense. Who has ever made such a proposal?
The conclusion of the paragraph is an embarrassing non sequitur. It is patently untrue that only a “dead and lifeless text, like a phone book” can be factually accurate. Giberson and Collins reveal their true understanding of biblicalinspiration when they locate it, not in the authorship of the text at all, but in the modern act of reading the text.
As they make their argument for theistic evolution, Giberson and Collins embrace a form of Open Theism and argue, quite consistently with arguments common to BioLogos, against the historicity of Adam and Eve.
They end the book with their own version of “The Grand Narrative of Creation.” This is their climactic conclusion of the narrative:
Eventually, the most advanced of the life forms on the planet, human beings, become deeply religious. Throughout the history of our species belief in God or gods has been close to universal. Abstractions like right and wrong, the meaning of life, the where everything came from have become critically important questions. The religious impulse developed into one of the deepest aspects of our complicated understanding of ourselves.
They conclude: “And God saw that it was good.”
Here is their own rendering of what it looks like when the “Book of Nature” trumps the Bible. Just compare their “Grand Narrative of Creation” with Genesis.
