I’m wondering if Craig’s apparent position on evolution isn’t at variance with Biola’s doctrinal statement.
Man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, but the whole human race fell in the fall of the first Adam.
Explanatory Note:
This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University.
Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.
As an anthropological dualist who thinks that human beings are body/soul composites, I think that a hominid animal, however advanced, which lacks a human soul is not a human being. So it really doesn’t matter whether or not there was a sharp dividing line biologically between pre-human hominids and human beings. In any case, anthropologists to my knowledge have not been able to come to any sort of consensus on the tree of human ancestry, so that all the hominids you mention may simply be dead ends on the tree of primate evolution which never led to man. Were Neanderthals truly human? God knows! I don’t need to know exactly when humans emerged in the evolutionary process in order to maintain that in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene.
The two are entirely compatible. The only point of apparent "variance" is at the "meta-position" rather than the "position" level, i.e., between
ReplyDelete"Inadequate origins models hold that... humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."
and
"it really doesn’t matter whether or not there was a sharp dividing line biologically between pre-human hominids and human beings."
Frankly, Craig's position is wiser, though I have great sympathy for the Biola statement.
Let it go.
Maybe Biola's faculty's "real life" position on the aforementioned written statement is flexible where the rubber meets the road, not unlike some Reformed seminaries' faculties' actual positions on adherence to the Westminster standards, for example.
ReplyDeleteHow are the following two positions compatible?
ReplyDeleteBiola states, "(c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God)."
Yet, Craig states, "I don’t need to know exactly when humans emerged in the evolutionary process in order to maintain that in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene."
When you say "I don't need to know" you are not arguing for a specific position. The point of that sentence was:
ReplyDelete"in God’s providence a first human being did arrive on the scene"
and the earlier sentence, viz. "a hominid animal, however advanced, which lacks a human soul is not a human being" is also a propos. The claim of the doctrinal statement that "Adam's body [was made] from non-living material" reads into scripture more than is there, very much in the same way that the implication that "humans emerged in the evolutionary process" reads into the scientific evidence. But once again: "I don't know" is not a commitment, and hence the two are compatible.
"The claim of the doctrinal statement that 'Adam's body [was made] from non-living material' reads into scripture more than is there."
ReplyDeleteEven if we accept that claim for the sake of argument, this is the official posture of Biola. It's a question of institutional identity.
Many Christian institutions have a distinctive doctrinal outlook, viz. Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, premillennialism, pretribulationalism, Catholicism, Anabaptism, &c.
To outsiders, these doctrinal distinctives read more into Scripture than is there. But these doctrinal statements set sectarian boundaries which define one theological tradition in opposition to another.
Membership is voluntary. No one is forcing you to join. But if you agreed to the terms of employment, then you have a duty to respect the institutional integrity of your employer.
"institutional integrity" is not compromised by an employee entertaining the possibility that the fence isn't on the boundary line. He isn't playing in the mud on the other side of that fence.
ReplyDeleteIf Biola refuses to enforce its doctrinal statement, then it should revise its doctrinal statement.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "enforcing a doctrinal statement" entail? Let's not encourage small-minded people looking for thought-crimes, please?
ReplyDeleteIf faculty are hired with the understanding that they adhere to the institution's doctrinal stance, when, in fact, they don't, then they took the job under false pretenses.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing them to apply. Those are the terms of employment, which they agree to if they are hired.
That distinguishes a Christian institution of higher learning from a secular institution.
Doctrinal Statements are not thought-boundaries. Doctrinal Statements do not constitute an ersatz "law".
ReplyDeleteBut no matter: there is plenty of room within both the Biola statement and that of Craig to permit agreement. This is sufficient.
Incidentally, this is a typical difference between a friend and an enemy: a friend interprets statements in the most generous way possible; an enemy interprets statements in the most limited (and usually most damaging) way possible...
The purpose of doctrinal statements is to set boundaries.
ReplyDeleteCraig is hedging his bets. You may think that's an apologetic virtue. Having a fallback position. But that subverts the doctrinal statement.
Doctrinal Statements are made for man; not man for Doctrinal Statements ;)
ReplyDeleteGranting all that Steve has said, given the extensive work WLG does for God's Kingdom, if Biola took the view that WLG's position is at odds with one part of their doctrinal statement, it is completely understandable they would not enforce it against him. He so effectively promotes so much else of what they would say they stand for.
ReplyDeleteHe is certainly not perfect and I agree 100% with your criticisms in this post ( http://triablogue.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/hansel-gretel-apologetics.html ) but, on the whole, a very able defender of the faith and someone you would be pretty happy referring non-Christian friends to.