Sound The Trumpet : The Karl Principle: Evangelicals Rejecting God's Word

Must Listen

Must Read

What Art Thinks

Pre-Millennialism

Today's Headlines

Sorry... Not Available

Locally Contributed...

Audio

Video

Special Interest

Commentary

17571

“The Karl Principle: Evangelicals Rejecting God's Word”
by Hip and Thigh Blog, - Word Press
October 30th, 2012

Recently, I was inadvertently directed to a year-old post [and] I thought I would offer a few comments. It represents one of those remorseful, head-wagging invectives against what is perceived as idiocy within evangelical circles. In a nutshell, the authoress cites from an article last year from the New York Times written by pseudo-evangelical, Karl Giberson, and [another author], in which they complain bitterly about what stupid liars 6-day creationists like Ken Ham and Al Mohler Jr. really are and what a terrible disservice they are to both Jesus and the little lambs of His church.

Karl goes on to mournfully opine how evangelicals like Ham and Mohler have turned their backs on society, creating a parallel sub-culture that allegedly presents alternative views of reality with their teaching as well as rejects "science." The word "science" here is new-speak for the Darwinian evolutionary worldview, btw. In other words, young earth creationists don't do "science." It's voodoo or something.

What is missed in this blog report is how Karl's materialistic, a-miraculous, naturalistic Biologos vision of "evangelicalism" is incompatible with biblical Christian theology, the very concerns Ham and Mohler express from their parallel sub-culture. In fact, nothing is even stated about Karl and his friends being funded by a foundation set up by Charles Templeton who became a notorious apostate before his death.

Everything I've read from Karl is that he doesn't really care about the incompatibility between a Darwinian worldview and biblical Christianity anyway, because he believes evangelicals take the Bible too seriously. In his mind, we need to abandon the doctrines of infallibility and inerrancy because they are bogus to begin with.

Four things here: First, [Young Earth Creation (YEC)] is a matter of biblical authority. The text of Genesis says God created in 6 ordinary days, as does the rest of the Bible whenever it touches on creation, including our own Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If you claim to take the Bible seriously as a divinely inspired, infallible document, you cannot possibly get around this fact. You will only be denying the meaning of language and the principles of grammar in order to do so. Moreover, insurmountable exegetical and theological problems are created as well. This is regrettably the position of many old earth proponents like Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe crew.

Secondly, the writer doesn't tell the readers that old earth proponents like Hugh Ross are also at odds with even Karl Giberson and the Biologos people. That is because, as muddled as Hugh's exegesis of the Genesis text may be, he at least attempts to affirm supernatural creation, albeit in spurts during progressive ages over millions of years. The Biologos guys reject such a view because of its supernatural implications.... Ultimately, the "age of the earth" really has nothing to do with the disagreement Giberson and Biologos have with these rogue evangelicals who teach young earth creationism. It is God's creating just like it says in the Bible that bothers them.

Third. Why is it that Christians have to question everything taught to them by Ken Ham and Al Mohler when it comes to creation and the age of the earth? Does this charge equally apply to old earth proponents?

Fourth. I think the idea of hapless, sheltered home schooled fundamentalist kids losing their faith and going apostate after they bump up against genuine science is highly exaggerated. How do we explain the opposite phenomenon? That being, public schooled and strictly secular educated kids who are saturated heavily in old earth, Darwinian thinking embracing young earth, biblical creationism? Is it because they caught a bad case of the "stupids?"

I believe fundamentalist defection has more to do with a spiritual heart condition rather than home schooled kids being unable to defend YEC in college. It wasn't a matter of bad "science" being challenged by unanswerable evidence. It was a matter of an unconverted heart.

Looking for His glorious appearing! Titus 2:13