"Now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account"

1704 reads

There are 6 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Sorry, when you walk away from a historical Adam & Eve, you walk away from any claim to being a "conservative" scholar.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Shaynus's picture

It doesn't seem like Al Mohler is sounding like a NEO Evangelical. This is a good illustration of how guys like Al Mohler are taking on at least some of the fight fundamentalists used to fight. He's very much a fighting evangelical. . . errr. . . fundamentalist?

Shaynus's picture

FYI, this article is a double-post. There are comments here, but not the one posted down in the sifilings section.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Biggrin
It is interesting to note where the front lines are and who is fighting there. More separated guys are fighting too, but it's at a distance. To some extent that's an unavoidable consequence of practicing separation... but doesn't really argue against its being the right thing to do. That debate has to focus on other kinds of evidence.

Edit: the other post is gone now.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

AllenS's picture

I think fundamentalists are still fighting this one. They just don't have to purge their own ranks of this right now.

RPittman's picture

Shaynus wrote:
It doesn't seem like Al Mohler is sounding like a NEO Evangelical. This is a good illustration of how guys like Al Mohler are taking on at least some of the fight fundamentalists used to fight. He's very much a fighting evangelical. . . errr. . . fundamentalist?
Not exactly. No one, I think, questions Mohler's allegiance to the fundamental, orthodox doctrines of the faith. He will speak out when these are under obvious attack. Any criticism of Mohler would come from his tolerance, association, and hobnobbing with those who don't. Even self-professed Neo-evangelicals believed the orthodox doctrines (e.g. C. F. H. Henry, et. al.) including the historicity of Adam and Eve. Although Henry believed in the historicity of Adam and Eve, he was willing to accept some reconciliation with evolution (see Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study by James Leo Garrett, p. 519) Although Mohler makes it clear in his "Two Irreconcilable Worldviews" article that he is a creationist, he harbors the seeds of destruction in his tolerance, association, and approval of individuals with evolutionist views. Evolution and belief in the historicity of Adam and Eve cannot be rationally reconciled.

Mohler falls a mite short of the strictness found in his predecessors at Southern in the persons of Manly, Boyce, and Broadus, who axed their stellar pupil, Crawford Toy, when he began teaching evolution.

AllenS wrote:
I think fundamentalists are still fighting this one. They just don't have to purge their own ranks of this right now.
This is true to a degree but unfortunately Fundamentalists are not banging the drum and sounding the trumpet on creation as much as they once did. There is a decrease in militancy. Instead of teaching and emphasizing creationism to their children, they are assuming everyone accepts it by default.