How should we regard Genesis 1-3, which describe the
creation and the Fall of humanity into sin and death? Is it historical or
non-historical, as the theistic evolutionists (TEs) maintain?
TEs have a vested interest in claiming as non-historical all
of the chapters which contradict evolution. For one thing, they believe that
death and the survival-of-the-fittest are God’s original plan for evolving us
from one-celled life. However, these contradict the plain historical accounts of
Genesis 1-3.
Not only do we not
find any evidence for evolution – gradualism, random mutation, natural
selection through the survival-of-the-fittest – in these chapters, we find the
exact opposite thing. God spoke creation into existence and each species as a
separate creation.
Genesis 3 claims that there was no sin and death until Adam
and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit. This is consistent with the creation
account in which God states that everything He had created was “very good”
(Genesis 1:31).
Did this proclamation preclude sin and death? Evidently! The
creation account is explicit that animals were not intended to eat other animals
(1:29-30), and that there had been such a state of comfort and peace that Adam
and Eve were naked and were not ashamed (2:25), because they had not yet
sinned. But when the rebellion against the Word of God came, so too did death:
·
“By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19)
Sin and death entered the world together BY Adam and Eve,
contrary to the evolutionary account. The NT also affirms its historicity:
·
For the creation was subjected to futility
[corruption – the Fall] not willingly, but because of him [God], who subjected
it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to
corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we
know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of
childbirth until now. (Romans 8:20-22)
The “groaning” hadn’t been part of God’s design, but He allowed the Fall “in hope that the
creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption.”
In contrast to the Biblical account, the TE narrative
undermines the flow of the Bible. For instance, if death had originally been
part of God’s creation, then He couldn’t blame Cain for killing his brother
Abel. Because survival-of-the-fittest was God’s chosen tool, Cain was simply
following God’s design, right? In fact, any murderer or rapist would be able to
justify his behavior with a survival-of-the-fittest rationale. In light of
this, to impose paradigm of evolution upon the Biblical account is to upset almost
all of the Bible’s teachings.
The history of the Genesis accounts are determinative. For
one thing, the genealogies, which include Abraham and even Jesus, argue for the
historicity of Genesis. However, if Adam and Eve weren’t historical, then there
would be no reason to regard others in Adam’s genealogy as historical.
Besides, all of the subsequent Biblical commentary regard these
chapters of Genesis as historical. Here is a sampling from the NT affirming the
historicity of the creation account:
·
When they heard this, they raised their voices
together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you
made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.” (Acts 4:24
citing Genesis 1 as history; 2 Kings 19:15; 2 Chronicles 2:12; Nehemiah 9:6)
·
He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you
laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”
(Hebrews 1:10 citing Genesis 1 as history; Psalm 102:25)
·
By faith we understand that the universe was
formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what
was visible. (Hebrews 11:3 citing Genesis 1 as history)
·
Through him all things were made; without him
nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:3 citing Genesis 1 as history)
Does the TE know better than all of these Biblical commentators
who attest to the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis?
Adam is consistently
regarded as the first man instead of a primate gradually evolved from other
primates:
·
For Adam was formed first, then
Eve. (1 Timothy 2:13 citing Genesis 2:7 as historical)
·
Created in the image and likeness of God. (1
Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 4:24; 2 Peter 3:9; Genesis 5:1;
9:6; each citing Genesis 1:26-27 as history)
·
So it is written: "The first man Adam
became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians
15:45 citing Genesis 2:23 as historical)
·
[Jesus] the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the
son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38 citing Genesis 5:1-)
·
Enoch, the seventh from Adam. (Jude 1:14
citing Genesis 5 as history)
·
Jesus replied, "But at the beginning of
creation God 'made them male and female.' ‘For this reason a man will leave
his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined
together, let man not separate." (Mark 10:5-9 citing Genesis 1:26 and 2:24
as history; Matthew 19:4-6)
·
“From one man he made every nation of
men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set
for them and the exact places where they should live. (Acts 17:26 alluding to
Genesis 1 as actual history; Malachi 2:10)
·
For man did not come from woman, but woman
from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1
Corinthians 11:8-9 citing Genesis 2:18, 23 as history)
Adam as the original
sinner and the cause of the Fall:
·
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all
will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22 alluding to Genesis 3 as actual
history)
·
Death reigned from the time of Adam
to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as
did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:14 alluding to
Genesis 3 as history)
If Adam’s work had merely been a matter of myth or parable,
likewise should we regard the work of Jesus, the second Adam. All of these
verses demonstrate that it is not enough to merely strip the first several
chapters of Genesis of what God had historically accomplished, the rest of the
subsequent Biblical commentary affirming their historicity must also be
forcibly stripped away.
Other verses regard even
the serpent/Satan as historical:
·
“You [Pharisees] are of your father the devil,
and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in
him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the
father of lies.” (John 8:44; Jesus affirms that the devil was the originator of
lies, alluding to Genesis 3; 1 John 3:8)
- And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. (Romans 16:20 alluding to Genesis 3:15)
To
deny the historicity of Genesis 3 is to undermine the integrity of the entire
Bible. It is to disregard the Bible’s own commentary in favor of an alien evolutionary
worldview imposed on the text. It is also to add and to subtract the
historicity from God’s Word:
·
You shall not add to the word that I command
you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God
that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19)
When
the TE denies the historicity of Genesis 1-11, he takes away from God’s Word.
When he imposes evolution upon it, he adds to God’s Word.
The
TE claims that he is salvaging the Christian faith for the educated who find
themselves in conflict once introduced to the theory of evolution (ToE).
However, even atheist Dale McGowan, Managing Editor of the Atheist Channel at Patheos, and author of Atheism For Dummies, is skeptical. He quotes Tullio Gregory who
expresses his concern:
- Once you cast doubt on man’s place in creation, the entire Biblical story of salvation history, from original sin to Christ’s incarnation, is also threatened.
Even
though he is a strong advocate for evolution, McGowan confesses that he is
“conflicted” and troubled by message of The
BioLogos Foundation, a TE organization peddling evolution to the church:
- In a BioLogos video titled, “Adam and Eve: Engaging the Tough Questions,” an advisor notes that there are “a lot of proposals out there of when the first sin might have happened, what it might have looked like… we don’t have a simple answer on the question of the historical Adam…who were Adam and Eve, when did they live?”
- This is always the first step in a crumbling theology – the suggestion that the answer is out there, it’s just very, very complicated. The problem is our ability to grasp the answer. But no worries, there are a lot of proposals. It all makes for an impressive simulacrum of rigor, an army of question marks in search of meaningful questions.
As
McGowen points out, Biologos has
undermined both the clarity of the biblical message and the church’s assurance
about it. TEs have often warned that “we must be humble about our
interpretations of Scripture.” However, they are not at all humble about their
dismissal of the first eleven chapters of Genesis as history. Nor are they
humble about dismissing the NT’s clear assertions that Genesis is history.
What happens when
Christians bite into the ToE apple? Kreeft and Tacelli have written:
·
If the Fall really didn’t happen in history,
then God rather than humanity is to blame for sin, for God must have created us
as sinners rather than as innocents. If there was never any real unfallen
state, then we were sinners from the first moment of our creation, and God was
wrong to declare everything he made “good.” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 213)
TE overturns the theology of the Bible. If the
survival-of-the-fittest had been part of God’s glorious plan, then who can
blame Cain for killing Adam or even Adam and Eve for eating the forbidden fruit
so that they could be as God! Perhaps, then, we too should live according to
God’s initial plan and to attempt to prevail over any opponents, even to rape so
that our superior genome will more generously passed on!
In light of this – imposing an evolutionary worldview upon
the Bible – the Fall was God’s doing, and He is to blame. However, the
destruction of the Biblical worldview is far more extensive.
TE also represents
the destruction of apologetics, the defense of the faith. How? Since the TE
denies that the Bible is about history and science – the physical world – it
has deprived the faith of any evidential support. Proof is derived from what is
generally known about the physical world to what is disputed, especially about
the theological. Consequently, we apply the historical evidence that Jesus died
on the Cross to the theological – the Bible’s assertion that Jesus died for us.
However, since the TE deprives theological assertions from their necessary historical
and physical underpinning. Consequently, TE Ron Choong, the head of Academy for Christian Thought in New
York City, has written:
- Darwin suggested that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God. That is correct!
Choong’s words
parallel those of many other TEs. However, can we take such a stance in light
of the Scriptures, which teach us that we are “without excuse” if we deny the
plain physical evidences for God’s existence?
- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)
Besides, there is no basis to believe in the theological
message of the Cross and the Resurrection apart from the fact that Jesus was
historically crucified and rose. His disciples had needed to be convinced of
His resurrection if they were to continue in the faith. However, the Lord
provided physical evidences:
- He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:3)
TE leads to the destruction of the Christian
faith. In
“Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and an Evolutionist,” the former co-head
of The Biologos Foundation, Karl Giberson, was candid about the impact of
evolution on his faith:
· Acid is an
appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost
confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that
placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science. [Darwin’s] universal
acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed
the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts
of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,”
the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (9-10)
However, Giberson assured his readers that Darwin’s acid of
evolution would cease to dissolve anything further. However, Giberson had
stepped onto a slippery slope and wrote a few short years later that he
believed that the God of the Old Testament, Jesus’ “Father,” was a “monster.” This
was the result of Giberson having made evolution his guiding light. No wonder
Jesus warned against having two masters (Matthew 6:24).
TE also leads to the destruction of any
confidence about the teachings of the Bible. How? In order to empty the
Biblical account of any argument against evolution, TEs claim that the Bible
isn’t about the physical world but the spiritual, while evolution is about the
physical and not the spiritual. Hence, all possible conflict is eliminated,
right? However, the physical and the spiritual are inseparable. Consequently,
to deny the physical (historical) teachings of the Bible is also to deny the spiritual.
Consequently, to deny the historicity of Christ dying for our sins on the Cross
is also to deny the theological or spiritual messages of the Cross. No
historical death of Jesus, no atonement and payment for sins!
Many doctrines depend upon what God has done historically.
Consequently, when Jesus was asked about the permissibility of divorce, He
based His answer on what God had historically accomplished, the historicity of
Genesis 1 and 2:
·
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)
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 would be no reason to believe 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 we have to seriously consider the promise of a future
destruction. However, if the flood had merely been a parable used to make a
theological point, then we might also assume that the promised future judgment
was also parabolic.
If all of Peter’s citations were not actual historical
events, what interpretation can we take away from Peter’s warning? Who knows! When
we are deprived of the historical context, interpretation becomes uncertain.
Perhaps Peter’s citations merely served as a scare tactic? Perhaps then the
Cross was also no more than 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 TEs have shown me:
·
They don’t know the Scriptures very well; nor
have they derived a systematic worldview based upon the Scriptures.
·
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 other
worldviews and the pressures for peer acceptance.
After some dialogue, it is usual for the TE to become highly
defensive and accuse me of judging them and dividing the Body of Christ.
However, the division is already there and must be exposed. 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