Friday, May 11, 2018

IF EVOLUTION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE, THEN ANYTHING IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE




I am regarded as hateful and accused of dividing the Body of Christ. Why? I have been waging an ongoing battle against the theory of evolution (ToE). I am not at war against micro-evolution. Everyone believes in change-over-time. Just look at breeding and the deterioration of the human genome!

Instead, my sights are on macro-evolution, the grand alleged inter-species changes that contradict the Biblical creation account. I would like to propose that once we make room for ToE, we have also created enough room for any unbiblical teaching. This development has also plunged large segments of the Church into Biblical uncertainty. Thus, my tiny campaign!

How does the belief in ToE condemn the Church to agnosticism? Well, let’s first look at how the theistic or “Christian” evolutionist (CE) have carved out room for ToE. They have removed any basis for any contradiction between their theory and the Biblical account. How? They have declared that Genesis 1-11 is not a matter of history but merely of myth and metaphor. Consequently, if these chapters are just a metaphor about a spiritual reality and not also history, puff – any possible contradiction evaporates into a mist of uncertainty about what actually is being taught.

For instance, we are left in uncertainty about why God had been angry with Cain who had killed his brother Abel. Why? Well, according to the ToE, God had brought forth the various species through the bloody and deceptive survival-of-the-fittest. If this is so, how could God find fault with Cain, who had merely been following in His footsteps, when he killed his brother? Perhaps God has a double-standard – what is good for God was not good for Cain, the survivor and fitter of the two brothers? Perhaps, God might even be an arbitrary sadist wanting to confuse His human subjects? After all, it was He who had introduced sin and death and not human rebellion (Genesis 3). Perhaps then He derives a secret joy from sin and death?

If the ToE is true, then confusion and uncertainty will reign at every turn. The Apostle Peter had preached:

·       [Christ] whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. (Acts 3:21 ESV)

How do we understand the promise of the prophets about God “restoring all…things” at Christ’s return? Will restoration mean that we will find ourselves in Edenic joy and beauty? Not at all! According to the ToE, restoration would mean that we would be restored to a condition where sin and death reigned.

Besides, the entire Biblical revelation is committed to the assertion that sin and death resulted from man’s rebellion against the Word of God. The fault lies with us and not with God! However, according to the ToE, sin and death had been a direct product of God’s “glorious” design. Such a foundational confusion sows confusion and instability throughout the entire theological structure – the nature of God and the entire Biblical revelation.

Besides, if Genesis 1-11 is myth, why not also the rest of the Bible? If the genealogy of Genesis 5 is non-historical myth, why not also the genealogy of Jesus, which partakes of the Genesis 5 genealogy? It gets even worse. If Genesis 1-11 is myth or metaphor, then the CE should expect that all of the NT references to these chapters should acknowledge that they are exclusively myth or metaphor. However, they consistently acknowledge that they are history, even if they do contain metaphorical elements.

Let me illustrate. When Jesus was asked about the permissibility of divorce, He based His answer on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, on what God had historically accomplished:

·       He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Genesis 1:26-27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Genesis 2:24]?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

According to Jesus, God had actually and historically created Adam and Eve and joined them together as “one flesh.” Therefore, divorce was sinful because it violated the pattern that God had historically established. However, if these two chapters didn’t reflect God’s historical work, then there would be no violation of the pattern God had established. Consequently, divorce might be permissible.

If interpretation is not grounded in actual history, then it is unrestrained and can take almost any form. The sky is the limit. Consequently, perhaps divorce is allowable when we simply fail to experience oneness. Or perhaps the ideal of oneness it meant to define all relationships?

Let me illustrate with another example. Paul had argued for distinctive sexual roles based upon historical events:

·       For Adam was formed first, then Eve [Genesis 2]; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor [Genesis 3]. (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

Although Paul argued that these events (also the pain and threat of bearing children; Tim. 2:15) are historical, the CEs regard them as strictly metaphorical. Consequently, God did not curse the world, and the Fall never was (contra Gen. 3). How then do the CEs interpret these passage? They are agnostic. Some simply claim that Paul, influenced as he must have been by his culture, was misogynistic. Others claim that he was merely pandering to his culture and the myths that they wrongly believed.

Without the historical bedrock, solid and assured interpretations cannot be drawn. Without the history of the Cross, we cannot derive a theology of the Cross. We can no longer maintain that we are now free from our sins because Christ historically and actually died for them. There are many examples of this principle in the Genesis accounts. Based upon God’s actual and historical past judgments, Peter argued that the promised future judgment would also be actual:

·       For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;  if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)

If these historical judgments had not actually happened, there is no reason that the future judgment would also be actual. However, Peter claimed that these prior judgments had been a matter of actual history. Therefore, the promised future judgment would also be actual and not a metaphor for something else. If the world had been destroyed during the worldwide flood, then there will also be a future destruction.

However, if these events never took place, then a final judgment will also not take place. Then what interpretation can we take away from Peter’s warning? Who knows! Perhaps it was merely a scare tactic? In any event, we are left with Biblical agnosticism, a  slide into uncertainty regarding the teachings of the entire Bible.

Am I exaggerating the effects of the ToE upon the Church? I don’t think so. My many dialogues with CEs have shown me:

·       They don’t know Scripture very well; nor have they derived a systematic worldview based upon the Scriptures, with the exception of those top scholars designated to sell the ToE to the Church.

·       They are always cautioning me that we have to be humble about our interpretation of the Scriptures. Why? Because they are uncertain about them! I only wish that they would be equally humble about the ToE.

·       Their views are almost indistinguishable from the professional or university communities to which they belong. Why? Being agnostic about the teachings of Scripture, they have no defenses against the surrounding worldviews and the pressures for peer acceptance.

After some dialogue, it is usual for the CE to become highly defensive and accuse me of judging them and dividing the Body of Christ. However, the division is already there. I just pray that they might become aware of it and how it is separating them from God and His Word.

No comments: