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:
Post a Comment