Repent: A Response to BioLogos’ Critique of ‘BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching’

Knowing full well that BioLogos would undoubtedly respond to my articles publicly identifying them as a false teaching organization at some point, I knew I would need to address their responses (of which I expect many more).

However, before I deal with some of their recent attempts to refute the arguments contained within my articles (“BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching, Parts 1 and 2”), I would like to remind anyone following this particular back-and-forth between AiG and BioLogos of the key issue my original articles revealed in relation to identifying false teachers within the church, and how those conclusions relate to BioLogos.

Why? Because I am already seeing “rabbit trails” in the comment sections of various postings of my article where discussions have devolved into debates departing from the main point I made.

The most common one I see is whether AiG or I believe theistic evolutionists “en masse” can be truly saved—which is NOT the point of the articles whatsoever (which I make abundantly clear within them).

AiG has always been clear that salvation is not dependent on taking Genesis 1–11 as plainly written. We all likely know many wonderful born-again believers who believe God used evolution to create. What my article deals with is what defines false teachers and whether BioLogos fits that criterion. These other arguments are distractions away from this point.

So, to begin, I would like to reiterate four points in relation to the biblical definition and commanded response to “false teachers” laid out in Scripture in relation to the BioLogos organization.

A Biblical Acknowledgment of, and Criterion for, Identifying False Teachers

1. The Bible makes it clear that false teachers will be among the church, causing division and strife.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies . . . (2 Peter 2:1)

2. Anyone who teaches in direct contradiction to Scripture is a false teacher. Although identifying a false teacher may be difficult in some cases, it is self-evident that anyone admitting to teaching something contrary to what the authors of Scripture wrote is by definition a false teacher.

I.e., if an individual professing the Christian faith admits that the authors of Scripture were teaching a specific concept/belief but declares that the biblical author was wrong, then that individual is a false teacher. After all, Scripture is ultimately God’s Word, so declaring any part of what Scripture teaches to be wrong is ultimately saying that God is wrong.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . . (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

3. Scripture makes it clear that Christians should identify and disassociate with false teachers. Romans 16:17 and Titus 3:10 are examples:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him.

4. Several BioLogos contributors are clearly guilty as charged (above) and have declared the authors of Scripture clearly believed certain things that we know today to be incorrect/wrong (see several examples in my second article). BioLogos (as a group) has platformed these people and not identified them as false teachers, continuing to collaborate with them in many cases. Therefore, BioLogos is a false teaching organization.

So, until these charges against them can be refuted, my accusation against them stands. And their arguments so far don’t even come close to doing so, as we will demonstrate.

[I will be quoting large sections from my original articles and from comments on the BioLogos Forum as well in order to demonstrate my points with clarity and accuracy throughout. Larger sections from my original articles are designated “OA,” and larger sections from the BioLogos Forum are designated “BF” to make it easier for readers to follow.]

BioLogos’ arguments

So far, the pushback we have seen from BioLogos comes primarily from the BioLogos online forum, where moderator Christy Hemphill makes most of the objections on a thread titled “BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching (AiG says the nicest things about us).”1

In the post, she makes three specific arguments to attempt to refute the validity of my articles.

So, I’ll tackle the first two points here this week. Since it will take some time to unpack, I’ll leave the third point for Part 2—next week’s blog post.

1. “Quote mining”

Hemphill begins with the accusation of quote mining and complains about lack of references:

Quote miners extraordinaire over there. And such good editorial practice not to link quotes to a source so you can read them in context.

Firstly, for those not familiar with the term “quote mining,” the simple use of a quote or abbreviation of a longer quote is not quote mining, per se.

Quote mining is the practice of using smaller portions of quotes out of context to make it seem like the author is saying something other than what is indicated in the larger body of work it was taken from.

Hemphill fails abysmally in her accusation of us quote mining by citing my use of a quote by BioLogos contributor Joseph Bankard in the preface of my first article to do with the topic of substitutionary atonement. That short snippet copied directly here below says:

BF:

First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. I argue that God did not will the cross . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.

—BioLogos contributor Joseph Bankard

Hemphill attempts to prove her accusation of “quote mining” by referencing a longer section of Bankard’s article, supposedly showing that he doesn’t hold to the position my use of his words indicates. I will quote her comments here in full, and will leave it up to the reader to decide whether she has made her point. (For example, does the longer quote from Bankard contradict the portion I used?)

BF:

What AIG quoted (there was a lot left out with those three little dots):

First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. I argue that God did not will the cross . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.

What the author said in context:

First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. As a result, God is not motivated by retribution or righteous anger. Instead, the incarnation is motivated by love. God wanted humanity to know him in a new and robust way. God wanted to be present to humanity in the midst of its sin and isolation. God desires right relationship. As a demonstration of God’s immense love and compassion, God takes on flesh and bone. He becomes a vulnerable child relying on humans for his every need. He learns what it is to hunger and thirst. He experiences torture, humiliation, and isolation on the cross. In the end, Jesus experiences death. And in so doing, Christ connects to humanity in a new and powerful way. His compassion both shows us the way of our salvation (revelation) and inspires us to follow after him.

I argue that God did not will the cross. An angry crowd, a prideful group of the religious elite, and a cowardly Roman prefect, put a perfectly innocent man to death. They willed the cross. And I believe this act is an example of sin. But God is holy, loving, and just. Thus, God cannot will or condone sin. Instead, I argue that the incarnation is about life, revelation, and inspiration—not death. I believe that God knew Jesus would be killed. That’s what happens when the kingdom of God collides with the kingdom of this world. But Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan. It was the tragic result of human sin. But as horrific as the cross was, God’s love extends beyond and redeems it. In spite of the anger, hatred, and violence displayed during the crucifixion, Jesus still calls out for God to forgive the crowd. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Luke 23:34) God’s love is greater than human sin. And the redemption promised in the coming Kingdom of God is revealed most clearly in the resurrection that occurs three days later. What sin and violence destroyed, God’s love redeemed. This is a vision of the eschaton; it is a vision of our atonement. God promises to absorb violence and death and replace it with reconciliation, forgiveness, and love. This revelation, this vision, is the reason for the incarnation. It is the power behind the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And it is the method and the means of our atonement and ultimate salvation.

As you can see, the longer version doesn’t help Bankard’s case. He explicitly says:

I believe that God knew Jesus would be killed. That’s what happens when the kingdom of God collides with the kingdom of this world. But Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.

Which is in direct contradiction to the Word of God:

Jesus of Nazareth . . . this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22–23)

Perhaps Hemphill was unaware of Part 2 of my article, where I use not only a longer version of that section of Bankard’s article but also show the preface to Bankard’s article on their website for even more context to it.

And so, as a reminder for those tracking the debate of the full context in which I quoted Bankard and his heretical beliefs, here is that section from my article—verbatim—for those who may not have seen it (followed by some brief commentary).

OA:

An incredibly incriminating article from Joseph Bankard (who teaches philosophy at a Christian university) posted on the BioLogos website demonstrates that, despite their professed commitment to traditional Christian belief, any and all Christian doctrines are ‘open season’ to interpretation because of their evolutionary views. Its preface states,

This post is part of a series of perspectives on how to understand the atoning work of Christ in light of evolutionary science. Readers are encouraged to browse the series introduction by Jim Stump for an explanation of how BioLogos approaches these sorts of issues. Here, we feature the thoughts of theologian Joseph Bankard. We want to encourage our readers to approach his ideas with an open mind, and even if you disagree with him, we hope it stimulates you to think more deeply about how to integrate science and Scripture in a faithful way.

It seems in this preface that BioLogos is obviously aware that Bankard’s views are rather “unorthodox,” shall we say, and may cause concern among Christians reading the article (for obvious reasons). Regardless, they ask you to keep an “open mind” and consider them, perhaps even adopt them?

It has that old ring to it, doesn’t it, Christians? “Did God really say?” (Genesis 3:1).

And of course, they admit up front that the reason Bankard’s (and other contributors) views are being featured is to reconcile the plain reading of God’s Word regarding the atoning sacrifice of Jesus with the story of evolution (i.e., if it weren’t for the story of evolution, we wouldn’t have to be doing any of this deconstruction of what the church has held to from the beginning!).

This means the Bible and the gospel aren’t the driving force behind their so-called “ministry efforts.”

I included the preface to further demonstrate that BioLogos is fully aware of what they are platforming. Bankard’s views are heretical; he teaches in direct contradiction to the Word of God and is, therefore, a false teacher. And BioLogos wants Christians to approach his heretical, false teaching/ideas not as an example of heresy, but “with an open mind,” which means they are a false teaching organization.

My article then continued with:

OA:

Bankard, of course, assumes there was no literal Adam who committed a literal original sin, and therefore is willing to totally reinterpret the atoning work of Christ’s death on the cross of Calvary because of it. He argues the following:

How does the view I’ve sketched differ from substitutionary atonement? First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. As a result, God is not motivated by retribution or righteous anger. Instead, the incarnation is motivated by love. God wanted humanity to know him in a new and robust way. God wanted to be present to humanity in the midst of its sin and isolation. God desires right relationship. As a demonstration of God’s immense love and compassion, God takes on flesh and bone. He becomes a vulnerable child relying on humans for his every need. He learns what it is to hunger and thirst. He experiences torture, humiliation, and isolation on the cross. In the end, Jesus experiences death. And in so doing, Christ connects to humanity in a new and powerful way. His compassion both shows us the way of our salvation (revelation) and inspires us to follow after him.

I argue that God did not will the cross . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.

Now notice that Hemphill and I both used longer sections of Bankard’s article to make our respective points. But readers should ask themselves, does the longer reading of Bankard’s article Hemphill or I used contradict my point in any way?

Again, I originally quoted this portion:

First, the incarnation is not primarily about the cross. God does not send Jesus to die. God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin. I argue that God did not will the cross . . . Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.

And this is why I stated the following (quoted from my original article), showing that Bankard’s views are in opposition to the authors of Scripture, God’s Word.

OA:

Of course, this flies in the face of biblical revelation in Acts 2:22–23 and Acts 4:27–28, where it says,

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22–23)

for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27–28) [emphasis mine]

Bankard summarizes his “big idea” and reveals his motivation for considering such a heretical view of Christ’s sacrifice by saying,

The view sketched above does not require a historical Adam and Eve or a traditional concept of original sin, making it more compatible with evolution.

In his effort to overturn an essential doctrine of Christianity (the atoning work of Christ), Bankard clearly reveals himself as a false teacher.

I hold fast to my conclusion that Bankard is indeed a false teacher. Let’s contrast Scripture with Bankard’s stated beliefs again to make it even more clear (following emphases mine).

• Bankard’s words: God does not send Jesus to die.
  God’s Word: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:1)
• Bankard’s words: God does not require Jesus’ death in order to forgive humanity’s sin.
  God’s Word: “‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25)
• Bankard’s words: I argue that God did not will the cross . . .
  God’s Word: “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42)
  “Who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father . . .” (Galatians 1:4)
• Bankard’s words: Christ’s death was not part of God’s divine plan.
  God’s Word: “. . . Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God . . .” (Acts 2:23)

Bankard seems rather vacuous in his understanding of the Bible’s teachings. Scripture is replete (far more than those shown above) with references to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary being the foreordained plan of God the Father to save fallen man.

How can he propose Christ’s death was not part of God’s plan when Ephesians 1 declares that Christ “chose us in him . . . [for] redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses . . . [from] before the foundation of the world”?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:3–10)

One wonders not only how this man could possibly be a professor at a Christian university, but also why any serious Christian ministry would ask for his views to be considered?

So, despite Hemphill’s (and several other commenters on the BioLogos Forum’s thread) accusations of me being disingenuous (at the most gracious) and/or an outright liar (at the most vitriolic) through the use of “quote mining,” I hold to my original article’s conclusions with a clear conscience before the Lord as per 2 Corinthians 4:2:

But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

2. “Association doesn’t equal affirmation of beliefs”

Hemphill’s second point is an attempt to establish that association doesn’t necessarily equate to an affirmation of everything any particular collaborator or contributor one associates with believes, teaches, etc. She says,

Do they not understand how the internet works either? Lots of places publish articles by people, and that doesn’t mean they are “teaching” everything the author says or will ever go on to say in the next fifteen years.

Now on the face of it, that statement is perfectly fine. Of course, there will be doctrines certain people in an organization hold to that others don’t agree with or articles that may align with an organization's mission posted from contributors that hold to doctrines other than the platform itself adheres to.

However, we aren’t talking about believers with “differing opinions” on negotiable doctrines; we are talking about heretics and false teachers. These are not to be associated with according to Scripture, so to platform or associate with them in any positive way should be avoided completely. We’re not talking about simply quoting a false teacher or demonstrating someone with a heretical view on their website as such (as a warning to believers). We are talking about BioLogos writing resources with, showcasing articles from, and agreeing in many cases with false teaching.

So the question then is, why did Hemphill state this as an argument against my articles? If the purpose of Hemphill’s statement is to somehow distance BioLogos from some of the folks I quote in my articles, then, by all means, they should do so. We would love to see that!

There doesn’t seem to be any other reason for her to make the argument, so is she intimating that BioLogos was unaware these contributors were false teachers and just now found out because of my articles?

I think not, because I just now clicked on Bankard’s article2 (Friday, January 28, 2022), and it’s still on the BioLogos website (and has been there since 2015), as well as several articles by Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, Karl Giberson, and the rest of the false teachers I quoted from in my articles.

And as the main point of my articles are: Scripture shows how to identify a false teacher (they directly contradict Scripture and/or admit they teach and believe contrary to what the authors communicated in God’s Word) and commands what to do with them once they are exposed (warn them and dissociate from them should they not repent), apparently she has not recognized the fact that several BioLogos contributors have done just that and should be held to account.

This is an opportunity for BioLogos to do so. It has been unequivocally shown (by quoting their contributors in context) that many of these people admit they teach and believe contrary to what the authors communicated in God’s Word. Will BioLogos as an organization then follow Scripture’s dictates on the matter and warn and/or oust them from their organization? Or will they continue to collaborate and associate with them?

And to her point of not being held responsible for what someone might say in the future, that is completely obvious. Most fair-minded believers would not hold someone accountable for something retroactively. It is not your responsibility should someone “go off the rails” theologically after having associated/promoted/collaborated with them in the past. They are responsible for their actions.

However, it does mean that if a professing Christian five days, five months, or fifteen years later admits to being a false teacher, then according to Scripture, Christians should dissociate with them at that time!

Again, why did Hemphill make the argument in the first place, other than as a red herring that has no bearing on the accusation of them as a false teaching organization? I think all believers would rejoice should BioLogos repent of their association with false teachers and purge their website from any articles where contributors openly declare they do not agree to what they admittedly believe the Bible teaches. It's why I choose to title my rebuttal of their objections: Repent.

Which leads us to her third argument, that AiG apparently falsely accuses BioLogos of not emphasizing and explaining the gospel.

3. “We do emphasize and explain the gospel”

To put it simply, no. No, they don’t.

However, as mentioned earlier (and in order to keep my critique of BioLogos’ objections more bite-sized), we’ll tackle that next week.

Nothing New: See Also These Past Refutations of BioLogos

• The Danger of BioLogos
• Is BioLogos Promoting Heresy?
• BioLogos Desires Compromise
• The Bible and BioLogos