EVANGELICALS REJECTING GOD’S WORD

THE KARL PRINCIPLE: EVANGELICALS REJECTING GOD’S WORD
[Excerpts]

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.

(“The
Karl Principle: Evangelicals Rejecting God’s Word,” Hip and Thigh Blog,
Word
Press, October 9, 2012)