Thursday, March 23, 2017


Theistic evolutionists (TEs) believe that in order to understand Scripture correctly, we must view it through the lens of modern science. However, this is placing the theory of evolution above Scripture, requiring that Scripture conform to it. To accomplish this, they require that we regard Genesis 1-11 as non-historical.

How do we interpret Scripture? We interpret it the way we do any other form of literature – by the intent of the author. How do we interpret the intent of the author? There is only one way to do it – from the perspective of the ENTIRE body of the author’s work. This is also what it means to interpret Scripture by Scripture.

However, you are interpreting Scripture through a “higher” and more authoritative lens, the lens of the present-day scientific consensus on evolution. For the TE, this lens has become determinative about how Scripture is to be understood, as if the findings and conclusions of this Consensus are more reliable than Scripture.

As such, the TE has imposed upon Scripture an alien taskmaster coercing Scripture to agree with the Consensus.

As a result of the TE is doing what the typical cult leader does. They too claim that the Bible is the Word of God, but they also claim that it can only be understood by using their Key to the Scriptures. For example, the rabbis claim that the real meaning of Scripture is deep and spiritual. It is not to be found on the surface. However, they too claim that they have certain formulas to penetrate into the depths.


  1. All of creation was authored by the same God who authored all of the Bible. Like Christian Biblical Theology, there is no uniform concensus among scientists about any of the many different fields of science . np

  2. Neil, here is something I just wrote that might clarify the real issue:


    In order to support their points, many cults insist that they alone have the necessary Keys to unlock the Scriptures.

    The theistic evolutionists (TEs) are no different. However, they have their own set of keys. They insist that the correct understanding of Scripture requires that we strip Genesis 1-11 of its teachings about the physical world, even of its history.

    However, we are warned throughout Scripture against tampering with God's Word:

    * Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 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 Corinthians‬ ‭4:1-2;‬ ‭ESV‬‬)

    When we deny the history of Genesis, we fail to make an "open statement of the truth."

    However, the TEs insist that Genesis was never intended as history but theology, but does the Bible provide any support for this. Not in the slightest! The entire NT has commented on Genesis as history. (The genealogies also testify to the historicity of Adam and Eve.) For example, Paul had written:

    * For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:21-22‬)

    Although many insist that TE is part of "mainline Christianity," by tampering with the Word, without any Biblical justification, they have joined hands with other cults.

    Unfortunately, lacking Biblical maturity, and perhaps even antipathy towards the Bible, many have been taken in.

    1. There are many different models of Evolutionary Creationists. They do not all interpret Genesis 1-11 as non-historical. All Christians interpret some things in the Bible as allegories. Prominent Christian Theologians who lived more than a thousand years ago interpreted Genesis 1 & 2 in non-literal exegeses. Moses wrote it in a different language to a different culture than you and I live in. np

    2. TEs might disagree about which chapters are non-historical, however, evolution forces them all to regard Genesis 1 and 2 as non-historical. Consequently, it seems that all I have talked to regard these chapters as having been errantly influenced by Ancient Near-Eastern cosmology.

    3. I am not arguing against non-literal but non-historical.