BioLogos Contra Inspiration

thumbnail of

As some intrepid readers may already be aware, a group has been assembled that calls itself “BioLogos” whose mission statement is as follows:

“The BioLogos Foundation is a group of Christians, many of whom are professional scientists, biblical scholars, philosophers, theologians, pastors, and educators, who are concerned about the long history of disharmony between the findings of science and large sectors of the Christian faith. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation.” – Link

Thus these bridge-builders are best described, in their own words and by the copious evidence at their site, as theistic evolutionists. More specifically, however, they present themselves as Christian theistic evolutionists. There’s been no small discussion taking place in various parts of the Christian blogosphere about the actual positions of this group over and against its public relations positions. The bottom line? BioLogos is plainly apostate and tends toward rank unbelief at any and every point of theological importance. Of course this should come as no surprise to true believers since the concept of theistic evolution forces an a priori default position against the historicity of the Genesis account of creation and the fall, both of which are foundational to orthodox Biblical Christianity. To separate a building from its foundations is, of course, to destroy the structure which seems to be BioLogos’ true intent.

And while BioLogos asserts that its contributors [at some of them ostensibly] believe the Bible is the “inspired Word of God”, one is hard pressed to find any actual evidence of this claim in practice. With this in mind, and as a service to the Body of Christ, I’ve compiled a short list of some recent articles that shed much-needed scriptural light upon the mad-scientists’ laboratory disaster known as BioLogos; a veritable Frankenstein’s Monster consisting of a hodge-podge of fetid, odious, obnoxious, and repellant abominations stitched together with the common thread of hatred for the One True and Living God, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe.

Trojan Horse – Phil Johnson

Middle of the Road: R.I.P. Kermit – Phil Johnson

A Coda on the Week’s Discussion / Summing Up – Phil Johnson/Dan Phillips

Essential Inerrancy – Kevin DeYoung

BioLogos is not “One of Us” – TurretinFan

Why Does the Universe Look so Old? – Al Mohler

Socinianism in Lab Coats – Phil Johnson

Everyone is an Inerrantist – Dan Phillips

In his piece “Socinianism in Lab Coats” linked above Phil Johnson well observes:

“Incidentally, BioLogos’s notion of “leading evangelical theologians” is revealing. Their theological headliners are men like Peter Enns, Greg Boyd, and N. T. Wright, not one of whom is truly evangelical in the historic sense of that term. Enns was dismissed from Westminster Seminary in August 2008 for his low view of Scripture. He and most of his supporters protested at the time that his views had been misrepresented and that he had been treated unfairly. But his contributions to BioLogos furnish ample proof that he did not, in fact, agree with Westminster’s doctrinal standards. Boyd, of course, is well known as a cheerleader for Open Theism, which denies both the true omniscience and the immutability (not to mention the sovereignty) of God.”

Which thing also explains why Pete Enns can be seen in a video at BioLogos in his “Paul’s Adam” series where he essentially attributes a first century ignorance of the human genome sequencing project to the Apostle Paul’s affirmation of a literal Adam. Poor Paul was simply under misguided first century delusions about the historicity of Adam, and so he went with the flow when he wrote. Mind you, Enns went to painful lengths in the short 2-minute clip I watched to attempt to protect Paul from being portrayed as an outright liar; Enns asserts that the “Apostle to the Gentiles” simply wrote as a baffled first century man who believed certain myths were true facts, but of course at the end of such an argument we still find an overt assault on the inspiration of scripture.

Yet Paul was either writing infallible truth as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, or he was mixing some analogical/allegorical “truths” with some of his own personal mistaken assumptions, having believed and inscripturated the cleverly devised fables of men contra 2 Peter 1:16. Pete Enns really can’t have it both ways, either God’s Word is true, all of it, or it isn’t. Simply stated, abandoning the historical-grammatical hermeneutic tends towards various forms and degrees of unbelief.

One can put lipstick on a pig, put it in a nice dress, and call it “Sally”, but it’s still just a pig. I personally find militant anti-theists like Richard Dawkins much more consistent in their epistemology (irrational as it is) than professing believers who hold to secular-humanist, rational-material views such as evolution while claiming to believe the “spiritual” parts of the Bible. To me this is the height of folly, and pinnacle of illogical thinking. I say this because the Genesis account is so clear and unambiguous that even a child can easily understand it. Equally clear are the Biblical warnings against double-mindedness; such a man is unstable in all his ways.


Because man cannot serve two masters. Those who try to keep one eye on heavenly, spiritual things while attempting to maintain one eye on worldly, material things have double vision. They can’t see clearly, and they fall into a pit. The Lord God Almighty, the infinite Creator and Judge of the universe demands wholehearted love and obedience from His creatures. Half-hearted love and obedience is as abominable and damnable to Him as outright hatred and disobedience.

“But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.” – John 10:26

Ultimate authorities are pesky things, and if one’s ultimate authority is something other than the inspired Word of God, then one is in the wrong epistemological camp.

I’ll close with an excellent quote from Dan Phillips:

The difference between fearing God, and trying to be God:

It only surfaces when God crosses your will, or your preferred way of thinking.

The God-fearer says, “God differs from me; I must be wrong, and I must change.”

The God-wannabe says, “God differs from me; He must be wrong, and I must change Him.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s