Award-Winning Christian Musicians Mock Biblical Creationists

Two years ago he blogged similarly:

http://gungormusic.com/2012/10/a-worshiping-evolutionist/

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2014/08/07/j-i-packers…

Augustine, aquinas, and calvin all rejected a biblical view of creation. Clowns such as Keller today also reject a biblical creation model.

[James K]

Augustine, aquinas, and calvin all rejected a biblical view of creation. Clowns such as Keller today also reject a biblical creation model.

Do you have links for that? Augustine, Calvin etc (not Keller). I would be interested to see why they rejected it, given they lived long before the theory of evolution.

This is simply another indicator of a significant issue within the modern evangelical culture—we elevate de facto novices to positions of broad spiritual influence based on their marketability to the culture more than their ability to “rightly divide the word of truth…,” discern its application, and then consistently apply that truth coupled with the credibility of proven practice.

The music world is not the only arena where this is taking place. My opinion only—much of the brouhaha surrounding Driscoll these days stems back to his being a very capable novice who never got past his roots.

It will be interesting to see what links you are provided in answer to your question above seeing as Calvin in his Institutes (3.21.4) wrote:

I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of predestination to carp, or cavil, or snarl, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave scarcely one of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly… .

and in his Genesis commentary wrote,

The first day Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men. We slightingly pass over the infinite glory of God, which here shines forth; whence arises this but from our excessive dullness in considering his greatness? In the meantime, the vanity of our minds carries us away elsewhere. For the correction of this fault, God applied the most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he had laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect. For the confirmation of the gloss above alluded to, a passage from Ecclesiasticus is unskilfully cited. ‘He who liveth for ever created all things at once,’ (Ecclesiasticus 18:1.) For the Greek adverb κοινὣ which the writer uses, means no such thing, nor does it refer to time, but to all things universally.

Maybe you will be provided a link saying something similar to what the Biologos people say. I guess we wait and see.

Brenda, in your expert opinion, is this article wrong:

http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science…

James, I don’t see Augustine rejecting any literal Genesine(?) teaching in that Biologos article. The Calvin is inconclusive, not having the context in front of me. Sparks speaks of waters presently existing above the firmament. Which I don’t believe in either. Of course, this could be Sparks’ error and Calvin could be referring to a supposed former condition in which he did not believe.

As I read her post, she isn’t claiming to be an “expert”. She’s just quoting source documents.

[James K]

Brenda, in your expert opinion, is this article wrong:

http://biologos.org/blog/scripture-evolution-and-the-problem-of-science-…

Here is a Christianity Today article about Augustine’s view of creation.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?paging=off

Take a close look at the Biologos article, as it does not cite either Augustine or Calvin on the issue of a six day creation, but rather speaks of a spherical planet and heliocentricity. So really a case of apples and oranges. Brenda, on the other hand, does address Calvin on the issue of young earth.

Brenda, 1, Biologos, 0, and a red card/game penalty for Biologos for diversionary tactics.

One doesn’t have to be an expert on anything to figure out what Biologos did there. The author even takes Brenda’s second quote, the implication of which is that God slowed down to speak to the weakness of man, and tries to apply it as if it means “billions and billions.”

And the singers? I just can’t describe how crushed I am that self-important coffee shop singers of modest ability reject the young earth hypothesis of creation and mock those who hold to it. After all, it’s not like Newton, Calvin, and James Clerk Maxwell count as “reasonable”, thinking people, after all.

Even Mark Driscoll seems to reference better than Biologos.

But his response to the Gungor news was an interesting read.

http://www.theprow.com/gungor-the-hipster-pharisees/