William A. Dembski's The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World is an interesting and provocative book. I have not yet finished it, and will supply my own thoughts about the book once I have done so.
In the meantime, I would direct your attention to a review of the book written by Dr. David Allen. Allen's review notably includes a preamble by Dr. Paige Patterson and a clarifying statement by Dr. Dembski himself about some of the more innovative portions of the book.
I will not go into a review of the content of the book, since I am saving that post for when I have actually completed the book myself. I will not offer at this time any opinion about the content of the book, the helpfulness or lack thereof of the theories proposed therein, or the compatibility of Dembski's book with Southern Baptist beliefs. I will, however, take a moment to highlight something particularly noteworthy about this review. Consider the following statement from Dr. Paige Patterson in the preamble to the review:
As president of Southwestern, I seized the occasion to meet with Bill Dembski. As a young-earth creationist, I do not agree with Dembski’s views of the age of the earth or the retroactive effects of the Fall. Indeed, as a “young earther,” my own position, which I naturally hold dear, is heavily critiqued in Dembski’s book.
You may have read on occasion the allegation—the deliberately dishonest allegation—that Dr. Patterson or other much-maligned Southern Baptists require that people agree with them on every point of theology or else they will not cooperate with them. Here we have a perfect test case to see whether this is or is not true. Dr. Patterson bluntly states that he "[does] not agree" with Dembski, and even that Dembski has authored a book "highly [critical]" of Dr. Patterson's own system of belief. Understand me plainly: A professor at SWBTS, working for Dr. Patterson, has authored and published a book that Dr. Patterson (rightly) perceives as highly critical of Dr. Patterson's own theological viewpoint.
We have here an example of a person who does not agree with Dr. Patterson at all points of theology, and of all things, with regard to the creation account in Genesis. If there is any truth whatsoever to the charge that Dr. Patterson will not tolerate and cannot cooperate with anyone who does not agree with him at all points of theology, then we are certain what we will read next: A ravaging Philippic against Dembski's book followed by a press release announcing Dembski's dismissal from the SWBTS faculty. If we do not read precisely that, then those allegations have been false witness borne against Dr. Patterson.
So, what do we read next?
The meeting with Dembski confirmed my previous judgments that Dembski is a biblical inerrantist, accepts the historicity of Genesis 1–11, including the special creation of Adam and Eve, and in every other way is teaching as an enthusiastic supporter of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Beyond that, Bill is one of the most humble of the great intellects whom I have ever known personally. In gentleness and great Christian grace, he discharges his duties to family, church, school, and denomination. . . .
. . . . As the case ought to be among brethren, colleagues, and sister seminaries, Southwestern and its president wish to express gratitude to Tom Nettles for alerting Bill Dembski and all of us to possible problems in his presentation. This is what friends should do. That this can take place in our Southern Baptist Zion with positions stoutly stated but without acrimony demonstrates that diversity of a tolerable variety exists within the unity of our broad fellowship—a unity motivated by love and trumped only by truth.
So, like most Southern Baptists, Dr. Patterson is someone who sees Southern Baptists as a people who enjoy "the unity of our broad fellowship" within which "diversity of a tolerable variety exists." Which matters belong in which category? Which ones belong to the necessary foundation of "the unity of our broad fellowship" and therefore cannot be compromised? Which ones pertain to the "diversity of a tolerable variety" within our unity which we overlook for the sake of unity? I may answer that question differently at some points than does Dr. Patterson. You may have answers that differ from both of ours.
But any honest person must admit that the mere categorization of a few items of doctrine into different categories does not in any non-demagogic way constitute requiring that people agree with you totally before you will cooperate with them. It does not constitute any attempt to drive out of the convention anyone who disagrees with you about anything. Anyone who tells you differently is flying in the face of the facts and is trying to hoodwink you.
Beyond the mere wording of this preamble is the action represented by the fact of its existence. Dr. Patterson has gone to the extraordinary action of defending Dr. Dembski's work against a severe review of it—against a severe review that itself came from the vantage point of Dr. Patterson's own beliefs. Dr. Patterson is defending the scholarly work of the professor who critiques Dr. Patterson against the review of the professor who agrees with Dr. Patterson.
So here we have the truth, not only stated in words but also demonstrated in actions. Praise God for the truth. Stand by for the spin, sure to follow soon.
Be wise, my friends. Don't believe everything you read.
31 comments:
Well, of course, you know this was all an act just to try to prove you know who wrong. LOL
This comment works better with this post than where it was originally posted:
"And finally, Tom; the thing about "leaders" in the SBC demanding "conformity" on the lesser matters is actually a myth. It is a useful myth for SBC conspiracy theorists; but a myth nonetheless."
I can think of another time recently when someone claimed an "official position paper" existed that was voted on by the SBC and yet this was not the case. An official document number was also given - a telephone number for Lifeway! I think several got shocked at that one.
Does have SWBTS have any 5 point calvinists lady tongue speaking profs? :)
Hi Jeff!
1. 5-Point Calvinist? Yes.
2. Ladies? Yes.
3. Tongue-Speaking? No.
4. 5-Point Ladies? I don't know.
5. Lady Tongue-Speakers? No.
6. 5-Point Lady Tongue-Speakers? No.
:-)
David Allen's and Paige Patterson's reply to Tom Nettle, considering the subject matter, certainly says a lot for the two men in this instance.
The evidence for an old earth is abundant. Let me give one simple example: the salt content of the oceans. Salt accumulates in low lying areas that are not drained by fresh water such as the Dead Sea, the Great Salt Lake, and the dry lake beds in the California desert. The ocean is the last spot, so to speak, that is not drained by fresh water and has been accumulating salt since the earth was formed. Forty days of rain during the flood was not enough rain to fill the ocean with the enormous amount of salt it presently contains, nor is six thousand years. The existence salt flats and other smaller salt deposits, and the accumulation of salt in fields irrigated with well water suggests salt accumulation is a continuing process with the amount of salt corresponding to the amount of time nature has allowed the process to proceed (the minerals in the Searles dry lake bed in California and the marvelous Trona Pinnacles are the result of wetter times when a river from the Sierras once terminated in this area -- and you can see remaining evidence of the shoreline of the ancient lakes).
The point to be made is that if God had simply made the oceans fresh water oceans six thousand years ago, then (absent the abundance of other evidence the earth is old) no one would believe in an old earth and we wouldn't be having this discussion. More likely God made the earth the way modern cosmology suggests, which in addition to explaining many other things also explains why the ocean has salt -- and also explains why Dembski's book (which I have read, and it is excellently written) is an important book.
And despite the fact that some people suggest that this is merely a step in the direction of diversity, what we see here is proof that diversity has always existed in the SBC--a diversity of which the SBC should be proud.
Bart,
Good post. I, too, agree with Dr. Patterson's view of a young Earth, and I really cant see how anyone could believe any differently!:) But, I also can see how this view that Dr. Dembski holds would fit within the BFM2K. I think he's absolutely wrong, even though he's a whole lot smarter than me; and I do see major problems with holding to such a view. But, it does not make him fit outside the parameters of the BFM2K, and thus we can disagree on issues such as this, and still cooperate together.
David
David, now if dude was saying that Adam and Eve were not the first people created by God or that Genesis 1-11 was all myth I would have some major league problems with him but as it stands I agree with you. His view is one on which I can agree to disagree--even though he's wrong. Bwahaha
Actually, I think I will get the book and read it. It would be interesting to see the evidence he presents.
IMHO, this blog has more open dialogue than Grace and Truth To You. If you disagree over there you are called all sorts of names. They all drink the same kool-aid over at GTTY.
Jeff, I concur.
I think that Dembski IS breaching the 2000 BF&M. His thesis contradicts Article III. MAN. Specifically: "By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. "
Dembski's view indicates that the 'effects' of the Fall came BEFORE the Fall. (That makes about as much sense as a woman becoming pregnant before conception takes place.)
In Ultimate Reality, the effects of any event can never precede the event itself.
The key word in the BF&M is "BROUGHT." Here is an example: Volfan007 could not eat his grits, this morning, because they were not BROUGHT to him.
(It is virtually impossible for Volfan007 to experience the effect of eating his grits BEFORE they are BROUGHT to him.)
Dembski's view contradicts the clear teaching of the BF&M of the 'effects' of the Fall. The BF&M states that the effects of the Fall did not enter into reality until AFTER the Fall.
I think that I will abstain from drinking the Kool Aid that would make me giddy towards Dembski's view finding ANY place in the SBC.
--chadwick
My understanding is that he does believe that man's sin has induce the fall. Dr. Yarnell appears to have address this in the white paper or whatever it is called.
bapticus hereticus: Please allow me liberty with Bart’s comments by re-organizing them a bit, thus providing ‘my’ spin to ‘his’ prior spin.
Bart: Stand by for the spin, sure to follow soon.
So, like most Southern Baptists, Dr. Patterson is someone who sees Southern Baptists as a people who enjoy "the unity of our broad fellowship" within which "diversity of a tolerable variety exists." Which matters belong in which category? Which ones belong to the necessary foundation of "the unity of our broad fellowship" and therefore cannot be compromised? Which ones pertain to the "diversity of a tolerable variety" within our unity which we overlook for the sake of unity? I may answer that question differently at some points than does Dr. Patterson. You may have answers that differ from both of ours.
Be wise, my friends. Don't believe everything you read.
Bart,
I appreciate this blog. I also appreciate the discussion between Allen, Nettles, Patterson, and Dembski. This really is the norm in conservative, inerrantist, SBC life and not the extreme. In my time at MABTS I heard a variety of views on creation, election, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc - but all from a thorough and solid Biblical inerrancy. I saw professors who would quite forcefully defend their position sit in the lunchroom for a meal together. Thanks for the blog, and looking forward to your review.
Steve in Montana
B.H., Very good counsel especially at GTTY blog.
Chadwick,
I have not yet finished Dr. Dembski's book, and am therefore not in a position to draw any conclusions about its content. I do, however, think that I can answer your question.
Dembski is not arguing that SIN predates Adam. Rather, he is simply arguing that the EFFECTS OF SIN predate sin itself.
I'm skeptical as to whether he will convince me, but I do see how his particular viewpoint is not contradictory to the phrase in the BF&M that you have quoted.
To sequence Dembski's theory as I understand it:
1. God first foresaw the sin of Adam and the subsequent sinfulness of humanity.
2. God then created a universe that contained so-called "natural evil" such as animal predation, etc. These things are not sins, but are instead the effects of human sin.
3. At the time of the special creation of Adam, God isolated Adam in the Garden of Eden, where no natural sin was present.
4. Even then actually sinned, and Adam after her and under her influence.
5. Adam and Eve were then ejected from the Garden of Eden and their morally evil selves were first subjected to a world of natural evil.
Dembski argues for a retroactive fall as a parallel to the concept of Christ's sacrifice on the cross retroactively saving people like Moses.
As I said, I'm not convinced, and I'm not confident that I will be convinced. Nevertheless, I can tell that Dembski is saying that there was no sin until Adam brought sin into the world, even if the condition of the world anticipated that sin.
Bart,
"By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. " (Taken from Article III. of the 2000 BF&M)
Does the 2000 BF&M teach:
1) The effects of the Fall precede the Fall? Or,
2) The effects of the fall come after the Fall?
--chadwick
Chadwick,
The BF&M, as far as I can tell by reading it, says nothing whatsoever about when the natural effects of human sin came into existence. Not surprising, since I am unaware of anyone else having this conversation prior to Dembski's book.
Steve Young said...
Bart,
I appreciate this blog. I also appreciate the discussion between Allen, Nettles, Patterson, and Dembski. This really is the norm in conservative, inerrantist, SBC life and not the extreme. In my time at MABTS I heard a variety of views on creation, election, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc - but all from a thorough and solid Biblical inerrancy. I saw professors who would quite forcefully defend their position sit in the lunchroom for a meal together. Thanks for the blog, and looking forward to your review.
Steve in Montana
Steve,
That was my experience back in the day as well. And I'd like to think that it is still the case in Southern Baptist life in general, but I am not so sure it is as much the case in SBC leadership and seminaries as it once was.
MABTS had a much more diverse faculty (in terms of theological views), in earlier years than it has today. When it was started, the profs were all graduates of a variety of schools, but nowadays a much larger number (the majority now, I believe) of the profs are MABTS grads, and there is a greater conformity in lesser matters than there once was. I think you'd be hard pressed now to find an old earther there, or anything other than a pre-trib, pre-millennialist, or many, if any, non-cessationists. There is very little acceptance of Calvinism outside the theology department, where it is tolerated, but kept on a short leash.
My observation has been that the general trend in in the SBC seminaries and agencies has been similar. As they have all become more conservative (and the seminaries have become more like MABTS always was), the areas in which disagreement of interpretation is tolerated have become fewer. Who would have ever thought that Landmark views of the ordinances would become a standard for measuring fitness for missionary service? Who would have thought that having a woman faculty member teaching a biblical language would be considered a violation of the BFM requirement that churches have male Sr. Pastors?
Bart,
The premise of your post is that it is untrue that Patterson, et al, "require that people agree with them on every point of theology or else they will not cooperate with them." I agree with this premise -- but it seems a bit of a straw man to me. I haven't heard that specific claim, only that the parameters of cooperation are becoming more narrow, and conformity is being expected or demanded on lesser ("tertiary") doctrines, including some not included in the BFM. And the BFM itself has been modified to narrow the parameters as well.
It is one thing to argue that SBs are right to be more narrow in defining the requirements for cooperation. If someone genuinely believes something is a major matter in which doctrinal agreement is important for missionary or other endeavors, that person has every right to express their views and to decide with whom they will and won't cooperate.
But it is something else to argue that there is no expectation at all of conformity on lesser matters. On some such matters there indeed is.
In short, I don't see anyone claiming that conformity on all things is expected (unless perhaps speaking in hyperbole to make a point); I do see some stating that the parameters are becoming more narrow. And I agree with that assessment.
I can go with our friend Joe Blackmon's approach of saying, in essence, "Yes, we are being more narrow; throw the liberals and bums out!" more than I can go with the claim that, just because there is still some level of diversity in certain matters, there is increased expectation of conformity on other matters.
At the start of the CR, it was enough just to affirm inerrancy, but today one has to be an inerrantist with specific interpretations in matters that are neither essential to salvation nor (historically) essential to being Southern Baptist. To me that is not a step in the right direction.
-----
Tom
P.S. Word verification: regym - to exercise again.
Tom,
Wade Burleson, to name one blogger, has repeatedly used precisely the phrase that I am refuting.
Bart,
I hadn't noticed that precise wording on Wade's blog, but I will look for it. Even so, I believe that the general point of his argument is that too much conformity on certain things is required. Do you disagree with that premise?
Tom,
Just checked out the faculty of MABTS and found the following: Eight professors have seminary degrees from MABTS alone, five of them have degrees from MABTS and at least one other Seminary, and eight have their degrees from schools other than MABTS.
I believe that is pretty good representation. I also do not have a problem with MABTS only. Dr. Stephen Miller has both degrees from MABTS and is recognized as an OT scholar that would be appreciated anywhere - just an example.
Steve in Montana
I can go with our friend Joe Blackmon's approach of saying, in essence, "Yes, we are being more narrow; throw the liberals and bums out!"
Now not once have I ever said that, sir. I can't claim that I've never THOUGHT it or hoped that someone would interpret what I said in that manner, but I've never actually SAID it.
Haa haa
Steve,
Thanks for checking. I don't think it is a bad thing that most of the MABTS profs are MABTS grads. I was just saying there is more conformity on some of the tertiary doctrines today than there was in the earlier years when very few MABTS profs were MABTS grads.
-----
Tom
Joe,
I knew that -- that's why I said, "in essence". :)
-----
Tom
Tom,
Did you ever attend MABTS? I did. I graduated from there in 1988. I would say that the profs at Mid America agreed on the doctrines of the BFM2K wholeheartedly. Now, there were differences on very minor points of theology; certainly. But, they agreed on the major doctrines of the Bible.
There was not one that I knew of that thought that women should be Pastors/Elders, or Deacons. They all held to creation, the literal six day creation account of the Bible. If there was one that didnt, I didnt know about it. They all were cessationists, and they all believed strongly in Baptist ecclesiology. Most of them were probably pre-Trib., pre-Mil.
So, when was this time that Mid America profs held to such diverse views as you claim?
Now, on minor points of theology, they disagreed, and we discussed; much like in the blogs today.
David
David,
Yes, I attended MABTS from 1983-1987, graduated with an M.Div.
I don't consider it an insult to say there was greater diversity in those days; I considered it a strength. They were all unflinching inerrantists, and that was what mattered most.
Yes, they all agreed on major Bible doctrines, and most did agree on the items you mentioned. But I knew two profs who were a-mil, two who were post-trib, and another who was mid-trib. I knew one who leaned strongly toward old earth creationism, but he didn't publicize it. Another taught that the gap theory was compatible with inerrancy.
More than one missions prof was not cessationist and told stories of miraculous gifts at work on the mission field. (Although an administrator/instructor was asked to resign when he let it be known that he had a private prayer language.)
There were more 5 point Calvinists then, and others along the spectrum, down to 1 point.
All were solidly Baptist in ecclesiology, but most were not thoroughgoing Landmarkers. All held to congregational polity, but some supported the concept of multiple elders.
They all believed in male pastors only, but they had different views on the role of women in the church other than as pastor. There was at one time a full faculty member who was female (though teaching Research & Writing, not theology).
What I learned most from their differences was that it is possible for people to disagree on secondary and tertiary matters and still love the Lord and love people, often far more than I ever did, whether or not they had the same doctrinal views as I.
-----
Tom
Tom,
You and I apparently went to Mid America at virtually the same time. I would probably remember you if I saw your face.
I do remember profs talking about miraculous events happening on the mission field. That doesnt make them a non-cessationists. I'm a cessationists, and I believe that God can and does still do miraculous things...when He so chooses to do so.
Of course, there are differing opinions on eschatology. I knew that then. But, most were pre-trib, pre-mil. And, differing views on the end times are certainly doctrines that we can disagree on. I dont know too many who would argue that everyone in a SB seminary should all believe alike on something like that.
I think most people in here, and around SB life would agree that some things do have wiggle room for disagreement. There are certainly gray areas of the Bible, where we can disagree all day long, and still worship and serve the Lord together.
David
David,
Yeah, sounds like we were contemporaries. :)
I agree with everything you said.
When I hear "cesdsationist" I tend to assume people mean full cessationism, and I know that at least some of the missions profs weren't that. But, you're right, they could have been classical or concentric cessationists, and I just never asked.
-----
Tom
Post a Comment