Consequences of Theistic Evolution Part V

creation, evolution, theistic evolution No Comments

In a series of articles, we have been exposing the fallacies of Theistic Evolution.  Part V of this series, continues to reveal the false ideas inherent in the doctrine.
9.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny substitutionary atonement.  Substitutionary atonement is the biblical doctrine that Jesus died in the place of sinners, i.e. He endured the punishment (unjustly) that sinners rightfully deserve. Jesus did this to satisfy the justice of God and provide for the atonement of sin.  Joseph Bankard on the BioLogos (a term coined by Francis Collins) website affirms: “substitutionary atonement does not fit well with the theory of evolution.”  He explains, “If evolution is true, then the universe is very old, humans evolved from primates…[and]…the Fall is not a historical event….However, if denying the historical Fall calls into question the doctrine of original sin, then it also calls into question the role of the cross of Christ within substitutionary atonement.  If Jesus didn’t die in order to overcome humanity’s original sin, then why did Jesus die?  What is Jesus, the second Adam, attempting to restore with the cross, if not the sin of the first Adam? Substitutionary atonement sees original sin as a major reason for Christ’s death. But macroevolution calls the Fall and the doctrine of original sin into question.  Thus, evolution poses a significant challenge to substitutionary atonement” (Theistic Evolution, p. 707).  Bankard affirms in Part 2 of his article that, in his alternative view of the cross, “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” (emphasis added) (Theistic Evolution, p. 707 an article by Colin R. Reeves, “Bringing Home the Bacon: The Interaction of Science and Scripture Today). The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is taught in the Scriptures.  Peter states, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (I Peter 2:24).  God’s Word declares “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:26,28). In refutation of Bankard’s claim that “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” consider Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”  “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). With respect to substitutionary atonement, theistic evolutionists sound similar to evolutionists who are also atheists.  G. Richard Bozarth, an atheist, states, “…evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.  Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god…If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! (Theistic Evolution, 706). We cannot accept the claims of evolution and adhere to historical Christianity.  Theistic evolutionists attempt to marry the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.  But, they fail to realize that the result is another lie and not the truth.  They thus assault the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Consequences of Theistic Evolution Part IV

creation, evolution, theistic evolution No Comments

Theistic Evolution is the belief that God used evolution as his means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life.  Several of the consequences of Theistic Evolution have already been considered in previous posts.  In this article, we want to consider yet another result of Theistic Evolution.
8.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also referred to as the perspicuity of Scripture).  Francis Collins, a theistic evolutionists, in his book, The Language of God, 153, states, “Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be.”  The word perspicuity means clarity.  To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear.  The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.  Genesis 1 and 2 contain the essential information  concerning the doctrine of creation.  If we affirm that no one can understand these two chapters in Genesis, we are giving up on one of the most important doctrines in the Bible.  Genesis 1 and 2 answer the question of man’s origin, nature, and relationship to his creator.  Creation is a supernatural act performed by an all-powerful, all-wise God.  The doctrine of clarity of Scripture is taught in several passages both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  For instance, in Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the Law to their children.  If God intended for children to learn the Law, then, certainly adults can learn it.  The creation of all things by God is one of the things that children can learn.  Paul told Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15).  The phrase, holy scriptures, is a reference to the Old Testament which includes an account of the creation.  Paul knew that children could understand the Scriptures.  Understanding God’s Word is essential to being wise.  “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).  The person who knows and obeys the sayings of Jesus is a wise man (Matt. 7:24-27).  Jesus said that knowing the truth is essential to salvation (John 8:32).  Jesus also referenced Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4 and understood it literally.  Spiritual discernment involves knowing good from evil (Heb. 5:14).  Paul states, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6).  Paul’s mission was to open the eyes of the Gentiles, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18).  Paul opened their eyes through the proclamation of the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 1:23 and 2:2). The apostle Paul referenced Adam as a historical person and called him the “first man” (I Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:12-21).  Both Jesus and Paul understand Genesis 1 and 2.  Why doesn’t Francis Collins?  Collins attempts to escape into agnosticism because he will not elevate the truth of the Scriptures over his own interpretation of scientific data.