UNDERSTANDING “CHRISTIAN” EVOLUTIONISTS

“Christian” evolutionists (CE), and this is how they refer to themselves, believe in both evolution and in the Bible. They claim that we can have both without compromising.

However, we should be quick to observe that the Bible presents, right at its foundation, a very different worldview. It claims that God created animals after six sets of days and nights, each producing after its own kind. Each had been an herbivore, and God considered everything He had created as “very good” (Genesis 1:31), suggesting that there had been no sin and death.

Meanwhile, evolution claims that God created through natural selection, the bloody quest for survival and dominance, over billions of years. This means that sin and death were from the beginning, part of the “glorious” plan that God had originated to create the species.  

In contrast, the Bible holds that sin and death found its origin in Adam and Eve and the resulting Fall (Genesis 3; Romans 8:20-22). In other words, sin and death came because of our rebellion and not because of any fault in God’s plan.

Clearly, evolution is at odds with the Bible and its theology. If God’s ultimate plan had relied upon the survival-of-the-fittest, then who could blame Cain, evidently the fittest, for killing his relatively unfit brother, Abel! Besides, Christian theology depends on the Fall to explain the work of Jesus, the “second Adam.”

How does the CE reconcile these very evident tensions? Easy – the CE regards Genesis 1-11 as non-historical. According to their formulation, science is concerned about the physical world, while the Bible is concerned about the spiritual or theological world and not history or science. And since the two are dealing with entirely different worlds, there can be no possibility for contradiction, right?

Wrong! For one thing, the Bible makes no such distinctions. Instead, we find that theology is directly and inseparably connected to the physical world. For example, we cannot have a theology of the Cross without a history of the Cross – that Jesus actually and historically died on the Cross.

Besides, the contexts of the Bible argue persuasively that theology and history (the physical world) are interconnected. For example, the many genealogies tell us that Adam and Eve were historical:

·       This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died. When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan. (Genesis 5:1-9; ESV)

This narrative also affirms the historicity of God created the first couple in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). And the problems of the CE do not stop here. Every time that the NT refers to the verses of Genesis 1-11, they invariably refer to them as an historical account of what actually happened. For example, when Jesus was asked about divorce, He answered:

·       “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning [actually and historically] made them male and female [ Gen. 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’ [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has [historically and actually] joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

Had God not actually and historically created and joined them, His argument against divorce would have immediately fallen apart with the simple challenge:

·       Well, this is just a parable. Therefore, if God didn’t historically make them one, then we are free to divorce, since we are not undoing the work of God.

Therefore, to not regard Genesis 1-11 as history is to contradict the entire NT commentary on these chapters.

When I confront CEs with these insurmountable problems, they respond:

·       We have to be humble about our interpretations.

If only they were as humble about the TOE! However, with such “humility,” they have condemned themselves to uncertainly about the entirety of the teachings of Scripture. If they cannot accept the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles at face value, they cannot accept anything that the Bible teaches. This leaves them in a state of confusion and uncertainly.

Consequently, since they are confused about the teachings of the Bible, they have left themselves vulnerable to everything that this world has been teaching them. As a result of this, I have observed that their views are indistinguishable from those of the educated elite, the universities.

I have challenged them about this on many CE Facebook groups and on numerous occasions, asking them, for instance, if they believed in same-sex marriage. None have ever answered this question in the negative.

I have also noted that they never evangelize the non-Christians who frequent their groups, until I shame them into doing so.

Why the reluctance? Without any confidence in their faith in Christ, they understandably will not put their neck out on the chopping block. They have condemned themselves to worldliness. And, if they lack the confidence to speak for Christ, they also lack the confidence to be a Christian in any area that might place them in opposition to their university-educated peers.

Consequently, they think that I am judging them. Although I do not tell them they are unsaved – I will leave that to our God who examines the heart – I point out their inconsistencies and compromises. In love, I think that this is the very thing that our Lord would do.

THE BIBLE AS GOD’S VERY WORDS: EXTERNAL VERIFICATIONS

 Is the Bible’s reliability and historicity supported by evidence external to the Bible? This is a huge question, which calls upon every area of human inquiry to pass judgment. Do the fields of history, archeology, geology, psychology, linguistics, astronomy, sociology, and physics validate or invalidate the biblical accounts? For example, New Testament scholars, historians, and archeologists give high grades to the New Testament Greek text. Based upon the textual evidence, even the agnostic and New Testament Critic, Bart Ehrman confessed:

·       The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of the hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars. (Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, 102)

Ehrman, who likes to impugn the many NT texts, had been asked:

·       Bruce Metzger [the leading textual credit of his day] your mentor in textual criticism to whom this book [“Misquoting Jesus”] is dedicated, has said that there is nothing in these variants of Scripture that challenges any essential Christian beliefs…Why do you believe these core tenants of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on the scribal errors you discovered in the biblical manuscripts? (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus)

Ehrman answered:

·       Even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a formly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement…The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by the textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. (252)

Metzger had claimed the text of the NT to be “99.5 free from textual discrepancies.” Ehrman, ordinarily the strongest dissenting voice, also admitted:

·       The more manuscripts one discovers, the more the variant readings; but also the more the likelihood that somewhere among those variants readings one will be able to uncover the original text. Therefore, the thirty thousand variants uncovered by [critic John] Mill do not detract from the integrity of the New Testament; they simply provide the data scholars need to work on to establish the text, a text that is more amply documented than any other in the ancient world. (87)

There is a strong consensus among NT textual critics that from the almost 6,000 ancient Greek manuscripts and fragments, the original text can be very closely approximated. In Misquoting Truth, Timothy Paul Jones adds:

·       Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, once commented concerning the Gospels, “The interval between the dates of the original compositions and the earliest extant [existenting manuscripts] evidence [is] so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.” (50)

NT scholar William Warren concurs:

• I would say that our [present composite NT] text almost certainly represents a form that is almost identical to the original documents. (Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue: The Reliability of the NT, 122)

Another NT scholar, Craig Evans, affirms the same thing:

• Given the evidence, we have every reason to have confidence in the text of Scripture. This does not mean that we possess 100% certainty that we have the exact wording in every case, but we have good reason to believe that what we have preserved in the several hundred manuscripts of the first millennium is the text that the writers of Scripture penned.

Similarly, NT textual critic Silvie Raquel writes:

• I also have studied New Testament textual criticism and, by contrast with Ehrman, have found confirmation about the validity of the text…by defective reasoning, misuse of the evidence, and a misconception of inerrancy, Ehrman fails to build a case for the unreliability of the New Testament text as a sacred and inspired text. (173, 185)

Daniel Wallace concluded:

·       “On the contrary, it [scholarship] has built it [my faith]. I’ve asked questions all my life, I’ve dug into the text, I’ve studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed…very well placed.”

The leading NT textual critic of his day, the late Bruce Metzger, concluded:

·       “The modern NT is 99.5% free from textual discrepancies, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt.”

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up the evidence this way:

·       "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."

And what about the historical accuracy of the Gospels? About Luke, New Testament scholar, F.F.Bruce, has written:

·       “A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate even where means of testing aren’t available. Accuracy is a habit of mind…Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”

Archeologist John McRay adds:

·       “One prominent archeologist carefully examined Luke’s references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Islands w/o finding a single mistake.” (Lee Strobel,  Case For Christ)

About the Gospel of John, McRay claims:

·       “It [the Pool of Bethesda] lies maybe 40 feet below ground – and sure enough, there are five porticoes…exactly as John had described. And you have other discoveries – the Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob’s Well from John 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa gate where Jesus appeared before Pontius Pilate in John 19:13, even Pilate’s own identity – all of which have lent credibility to John’s Gospel.” (Strobel)

·       “Archeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible. On the contrary, as we’ve seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years, but that archeology has shown to be wrong.”

In fact, the textual evidence along with other forms of historical evidence are so compelling that even skeptics acknowledge that the Apostles had been convinced that they had encountered the resurrected Jesus.

Even the atheist Ludemann had conceded:

·        “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” (Strobel)

Jewish NT scholor Paula Fredriksen also conceded:

·       “The Disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ…is historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.” (Strobel)

NT scholar James Dunn went a step further:

·       “It is an undoubted fact that the conviction that God had raised Jesus from the dead and had exalted Jesus to his right hand transformed Jesus’ first disciples and their beliefs about Jesus.” (Christian Research Journal, Vol.39, No.2, 14)

Christian Apologist Michael Licona adds:

·       “After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it. They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.” (16)

So too Christian Apologist Sean McDowell:

·       “From the Apostles forward, there is no evidence for an early Christian community that did not have belief in the Resurrection at its core. The centrality of the Resurrection can be seen by considering the earliest Christian creeds, the preaching in Acts, and the writings of the apostolic fathers.” (14)

All the above represent affirmations of the Christian faith based historical and textual evidences. However, there are many other forms of external confirmations.

         

Scientific Confirmations

Theistic evolutionists (TEs) discount the role of science and physical evidences in supporting the Christian faith. Why? For one thing, they claim that the Bible is not about the physical world and science is not about the spiritual world. Therefore, there is no basis for any conflict between these two world as they occupy very different worlds. Therefore, if this artificial and unsupportable distinction is held, the TE claims that the Christian can also be an evolutionist.

·       “The science of the Bible is obviously the ‘science’ of the ancient near east, and is antiquated and therefore wrong. Instead, the Bible is about salvation [the spiritual world] and a relationship with Christ.”

This dogmatic statement dismisses whatever the Bible teaches about the physical world, including history, geography, psychology and biology. Why then not also dismiss what the Bible has to say about our feelings, thought life and spiritual growth? These, of course, are connected to our biology (our physical life) – eating, sleeping, and drinking. Clearly, these two worlds are inseparable.

Besides, I don’t see how we can trust in the Bible’s spiritual message once we deny its physical message.

The TEs distinction between the Bible’s teachings about the physical world and the spiritual cannot hold up under scrutiny. The Bible states that Lazarus rose from the dead, but all miracles impinge upon the physical world. Is the Bible then wrong in its account of miracles?

Instead, the biblical worldview will not allow us to separate its historical teachings from its spiritual teachings. Its spiritual teaching of forgiveness and new life through the death and resurrection of Jesus is inseparable from its physical teaching that Jesus historically died on the cross for us.

Nevertheless, TEs try to separate the two aspects of scriptural teaching – the physical, which the TE claims is errant from the spiritual, which the TE grants as inerrant. How do they accomplish this? By demonstrating that the Bible is wrong in its physical teachings! For example, they cite Psalm 93:1 as an example of the Bible errantly influenced by the ancient Near Eastern cosmology of its day:

·       The LORD reigns; he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

From this verse, the TEs erroneously claim that the Bible teaches that the earth cannot be moved because it sits on a pedestal as the ancient cosmologists had believed. However, they conveniently fail to consider the fact that the righteous also “shall never be moved.” Clearly, this is not because they too are glued to a pedestal (Psalm 125:1; 16:8). Instead, God will not allow His righteous ones to be destroyed. Similarly, He will not allow His creation to be destroyed or “moved.”

The Bible does not ignorantly teach ancient cosmology. Instead, I’d like to cite evidence that the Bible wasn’t corrupted by ancient “science” but instead anticipated the findings of modern science:

1.    TIME IS NOT ETERNAL AS BIG BANG COSMOLOGY ASSERTS: 2 Tim. 1:9 [God] who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the BEGINNING OF TIME.

2.    THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING: Genesis 1:1 “In the BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth.” (Contra the steady-state theory that had ruled science).

3.    THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE PHYSICAL WORD AREN’T VISIBLE: Hebrews 11:3 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.

4.    THERE ARE LAWS OF SCIENCE: Jeremiah 33:25 This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the FIXED LAWS of heaven and earth, (Also Job 38:33)

5.    WATER CYCLE: Job 36:27 "He DRAWS UP the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams.” (Also Amos 9:6)

6.    DINOSAURS?? Psalm 74:14 It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave him as food to the creatures of the desert. (Isa 27:1; 51:9; Jer. 51:34; Eze 29:3)

7.    COSMIC EXPANSION, ROUND EARTH: Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and SPREADS THEM OUT like a tent to live in. (Scripture claims that the universe was created, rather than having existed eternally, as the atheist had supposed.) (42:5)

8.    STARS AS GUIDES TO SEASONS AND GEOGRAPHIC POSITIONS: Genesis 1:14 lights in the expanse of the sky… [would] serve as SIGNS to mark seasons and days and years.”

9.    COUNTLESS STARS: Jeremiah 33:22  “I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as COUNTLESS AS THE STARS of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore." (Also Job 11:7-8; 22:12)

10. THE EARTH DOES NOT SIT ON A PEDESTAL AS ANCIENT COSMOLOGY HAS IT: Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over NOTHING.

11. STRESS NEGATIVELY IMPACTS HEALTH: Proverbs 17:22 A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

12. UNHEALTHY QUALITY OF EXCREMENT: Deut. 23:12-13 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement.

13. FOSSIL FINDS IN THE MOUNTAINS PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD: Psalm 104:6 …the waters stood ABOVE the mountains.

Don’t be too impressed with this kind of evidence. Why not? This evidence is only as persuasive as are the findings of modern-day scholarship, to which I do not want to give undue weight. However, this evidence is powerful in the face of Bible detractors who argue that the Bible fails to accord with our present-day scientific consensus.

In fact, all forms of external evidence – whether deemed as positive of negative, supportive or detractive - relies on the present status of the scholarly consensus. Therefore, if the “evidence” against the Bible is acceptable, then evidence for the Bible must be equally acceptable.

I have just touched upon a small sample of the various ways that the Bible receives external verification from the surrounding physical world. Consequently, we can spend more than an entire lifetime exploring this almost limitless subject.

When Christians Embrace Darwin: Some Things Gotta Change

A Christian embracing evolution is like lava embracing a village. There are going to be changes. As villages weren’t made to welcome molten lava, Christianity cannot marry Darwin without modification to its faith. One “Christian” wrote me in defense of his marriage:

·       Jesus is the Logos, the Word. He is the physical embodyment of the Word of God, the scriptures are not the Word of God, they are the testimonies of the people of God.

This Christian evolutionist (CE) demoted Scripture as mere “testimonies of the people of God” not testimonies of the Holy Spirit:

·       Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Why does the CE demote Scripture? To comfortably welcome Darwin! However, there is not a verse in the entire corpus of Scripture that gives the slightest nod to evolution. Meanwhile CE college teachers cry out that there are many Christians ready to abandon the faith because they have been convinced of evolution. Therefore, these troubled souls need an updated Christianity that will work for them.

Why not instead show them the fallacies of evolution and unmask the faith that has been foisted upon them by the evolutionary community! After all, it is a faith which they have adopted from the highly biased proclamations of the evolution establishment.

Don’t be surprised by this. Sadly, the church has often played lapdog to the current social/scientific trends. When the scientific community was geocentric (that the earth was in the center of the solar system), the church followed along. When science embraced the steady state theory (the universe always existed), the church gladly trailed behind, even at the expense of Scripture. When the evolutionary establishment endorsed theories of racial superiority, the church became convinced that these experts knew better. And now that society has insisted upon the correctness of gay marriage, many churches have marched in lock-step, lest they be labeled a “homophobe.”

What will we not sell-out for the sake of acceptance!

How the Christian Evolutionist Interprets the Bible

One Christian evolutionist (CE), in setting the stage for a discussion of the Book of Job, asks:

• Did Job really exist? Is the book of Job about the real suffering of a historical figure? Both Walton and Longman [two commentators] note that it is not possible to know for sure, and both emphasize that it does not matter.

Does it not matter? I think that it matters in a number of ways. However, more importantly, we should ask whether Job’s historicity is a concern for Scripture and its integrity!

Ezekiel treats Job as historical – just as historical as Noah and Daniel:

• Even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord…as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, even if Noah, Daniel and Job were in it [the city that God has decided to destroy], they could save neither son nor daughter. They would save only themselves by their righteousness. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)

Clearly, if Job is fictitious (allegorical), then God’s warning of destruction would be compromised. This warning could then be interpreted in line with the “fictitious” Job as also fictitious – an empty warning.

James also refers to Job as an actual, historical person:

• As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. (James 5:11)

If Job was a fictional invention, then James is wrong. However, James has used the account of Job to prove that “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” You can’t do this with fiction or allegory. Fiction can’t prove; it merely illustrates!

In order to be consistent, if these commentators are going to question the historicity of Job, they must also question the accuracy and trustworthiness of James. Evidently, they do not take James’ or Ezekiel’s references to Job as authoritative. We therefore must wonder what it is that they do regard as supremely authoritative. In other words, what for them constitutes such weighty evidence that they would deny that Job is historical? What can be more authoritative than Scripture?

Here’s what often happens. When we believe in evolution and try to justify it in light of the Bible, we conclude that the Bible isn’t about history or science. Once we have made this compromise, we are then able to marry Darwin and the Bible without conflict. After all, if the Bible is about the spiritual world and Darwin is about the physical, there can no longer be any contradiction, because they deal with two entirely different subjects!

However, this compromise profoundly affects interpretation. The Bible no longer has to be historical. Job, Daniel and Noah no longer have to be historical, and the Bible is just an allegory.

However, allegories aren’t facts and therefore, they aren’t evidences. They are merely illustrations. Once we marry Darwin to the Bible, the miracles of the Bible no longer can constitute evidence. The fulfilled prophecies are no longer evidences but allegorical illustrations of spiritual principles. Besides, if we can’t trust what the Bible teaches about the physical world, how can we trust what it says about the spiritual! Say goodbye to apologetics and the defense of the faith.

Why then should we believe? Well, merely because it feels right to us. And how about the other religions? Don’t they feel right to their adherents? Say hello to religious pluralism, and let’s try out the god Vishnu.