BiblicalInsights.net

Francis Collins, in The Language of God, 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” (p. 153).  Collins escapes into agnosticism regarding the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 because his interpretations of scientific data conflicts with what God said He did and when He did it.  Collins elevates his own interpretations over the obvious import of God’s Word.  Exodus 20:11 states, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”  This is divine commentary on Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses.  Jesus affirms that Moses gave the Law (John 7:19, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” Jesus referenced Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in His personal teaching.  He also references Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.”  And, Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”  Collins denies this truth and affirms that man evolved from monkeys (The Language of God, 200, “Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes”).  The rejection of the plain teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20:11, puts Collins in conflict with Jesus.  Jesus understands Moses perfectly!
The Meaning of the Clarity of Scripture
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also known as the perspicuity 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.  The doctrine of the clarity of the Scriptures was a main belief of the Reformers such as Martin Luther who taught against the claim that the Bible was not clear and so it was too obscure for the common man to understand.  The Catholic Church opposed the interpretation of the Bible by the common man.
The Bible Proclaims Its Own Clarity
In Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the law to their children.  If children can learn the law and the creation account was part of that law, then, adults can learn it too!  In II Tim. 3:13-15, Paul said that Timothy had known the holy Scriptures from a child.  Paul knew that a child could learn the Scriptures.  Both Paul and Jesus understood Genesis 1 and 2 in a literal sense.  Both identified the beginning of the creation of male and female by God.  Both believed Adam was the first man and that he was a real, literal, person (Matt. 19:4-5; Rom. 5:12-ff; I Cor. 15:45).  Redemption is the result of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ because of the fall of Adam and Eve as revealed in Genesis 3.  Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic promise, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”  These words were spoken to the serpent (Satan).  They reveal God’s plan to deal a crushing blow to the devil through the seed of the woman which was fulfilled in Jesus’ work of redemption (Heb. 2:14-15, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”).
The Dangers of The Denial of the Doctrine of Clarity
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we must give up on personal accountability to God.  God expects us to know His Word and obey it (Heb. 5:8-9).  If the Bible is unclear about salvation, then, no one could be held accountable for not obeying it.
The denial of the doctrine of clarity means that God failed to adequately communicate His Will to man in such a way that man could know the truth.  How could we distinguish truth from error?  If we believe a lie, we will be damned (II Thess. 2:11-12).
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we could not know the true origin of mankind.  We could not know if we were the result of God’s creative power or that we were descended from mice and monkeys.  However, God tells us what He did, when He did it and how He did it (Psa. 33:8-9).  What He did:  created all things by His omnipotence.  When He did it: In the beginning.  How He did it: By divine fiat.  God spoke and it was done.
“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. 4:7).
Theistic Evolution is a Heresy
The word heresy comes from the Greek word, hairesis, and means, “to choose, a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, 217).  All heresies are works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20, II Pet. 2:1; I Cor. 11:19).  Paul affirms that those who commit the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Goebel Music, a brother in Christ, who is now deceased wrote a book titled, A Crucial Study of a Critical Subject: Fellowship, in 1989.  In this book, he includes six chapters and an appendix.  The third chapter addresses the topic: Let’s Understand the Doctrine of Christ.  I would like to convey some of Goebel’s remarks on II John 9-11.
“With this “key” passage of major significance listed as one of our “troubling” spots, for some brethren, and with what some scholars have had to say about it, it is now time for us to examine critically and to clarify its meaning.  I want to set this before us “thought after thought” for the best possible understanding of its contents.  Therefore, we now turn our attention and focus our best mental abilities to that end.”
1.  “Whosoever.”  “Although it seems rather foolish to have to state this, let me remind us that this is a general, universal, and catholic term.  Its meaning is like that of John 3:16; Matthew 18:4; 19:9; 5:31-32; Revelation 22:17; etc., regarding “whosoever.”
2.  “Goeth Onward.” “This is the Greek proton (pres. act. participle, nominative, singular masculine from proago, Nathan E. Han, A Parsing Guide To The Greek New Testament, p. 433).  According to Thayer it means “b. to proceed, go forward; in a bad sense, to go further than is right or proper,…to transgress the limits of true doctrine…advanced…in a disparaging sense, 2 Jn. 9…” (P. 537, emp. GM). this is the word from which we get our word “progress” or “progressive,” (Maybe this is what people mean when they want to know, “Is this a progressive church?” GM).
3.  “Abideth Not.” This is the Greek melon (the same identification as proago), from meno, and is descriptive of the same process.  There is, however, a difference, as this is negative, whereas the first is positive.  Among other meanings, this word means “to maintain unbroken fellowship with one” (Thayer, p.399).  The teaching is most explicit! If we are to “have God” (as per the verse) and “to have the Son,” we are to abide “in the doctrine of Christ.”
4.  “In the Teaching of Christ.”  “This phrase, used twice in this one verse, has already been discussed as meaning “the teaching of Christ, which he did personally, and through those inspired men, as he is the author of this infallible, inerrant, unchangeable standard.” “There is to be no progression beyond the limits of this teaching!”
5.  “Hath Not God.”  “The true God is found only in the teaching of Christ (cf. I John 5:20; John 14:9,11; 10:30).  When we refer to God, various scriptures automatically come to mind, such as: Genesis 1:1; Psalms 33:6,9; Isaiah 43:7; 44:6; 45:18; Exodus 3:14; Psalms 90:2; I Corinthians 8:5-6; John 3:16; Isaiah 45:22; Deuteronomy 5:7; 6:1ff and a galaxy of others.  This is, indeed, the Father!
6.  “He That Abideth In The Teaching, The Same Hath Both The Father And The Son.” “This is a most explicit statement with abiding results!  The necessity of it is herein shown. It is a positive statement relative to that “which results” when one abides “in the doctrine,” or as the American Standard Says, “in the teaching.”  If logic is worth a dime, the negative of this statement is viewed as being most disastrous!  To fail to abide “in the teaching,” is to “give up having,” yea, both the Father and the Son!”
7.  “If One Cometh Unto You.”  “I first want to call you (sic) attention to the “broadness” of this statement: “If Any One!” The “whosoever,” and now this “if any one,” is likened unto its usage in Matthew 5:31-32 where “whosoever’ is used twice and “any one” is used once.  It is also like Matthew 19:9 where we have “whosoever” and “he that” (which “he,” is it? It is any “he.”). This is a thought worthy of our mental bank! It is to be understood since the Greek construction is ei with the indicative, that they “will come” and they “will come” for the very purpose of “teaching.” It is not a statement that “supposes someone might come….!”  Brethren, they may come “from without,” but they may very likely come “from within” (cf. Acts 20:29-30).
8.  “And Bringeth Not This Teaching.” “This is a self-explanatory and easily understood statement, as it is the “follow-up” in verification of what has been previously sated.  Note the “if any one cometh” and now the “and bringeth not this teaching,” as this is the proof of the first statement.  Again, let us remind ourselves that these teachers “will come’ and they will not come with “the teaching of Christ.” If one fails to understand “this teaching” to be synonymous with “the doctrine/teaching of Christ” then he truly has a problem!  Note the different statements: “the teaching of Christ” (twice used), “the teaching,” and “this teaching.”  And note also the negative used in relation to “this teaching.”  When this “is done,” we are then told exactly, explicitly, what our action is to be!”
9.  “Receive Him Not Into Your House, And Give Him No Greeting.”  “Is there a “qualification” that one must meet in relation to the teaching/doctrine of Christ and my hospitality and personal greeting of the same?  Does this passage of sacred scripture (2 John 9-11) not teach what we might term a “test,” “examination” etc., as to whether or not a person is deemed by the Master as being “worthy” of that which my house (hospitality) has to offer?  This, if you read carefully, absolutely relates directly to whether or not “if anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching,” that is the teaching of Christ.  How am I to relate to one who has “progressed beyond the limits of the teaching of Christ” (Thayer’s definition of proago) and “abideth not” in the same?  It is simple! No reception is to be given, extended, to such a one.  No, not even a greeting (Greek chairo). Here the word, evidently, carries the idea of “God speed” (Vine, op. cit., p. 178).  I want to emphasize that NO ONE CAN GIVE SUCH AND BE FAITHFUL TO “THE TEACHING/DOCTRINE OF CHRIST!”  Just as surely as “no one who proceeds beyond the doctrine/ teaching of Christ and BE FAITHFUL TO THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN! Why??”
10.  “For He That Giveth Him Greeting Partaketh In His Evil Works.”  “No one is to fail to show hospitality to strangers (cf. Hebrews 13:2), but this is not just a case of hospitality!  It is the case of aiding, helping, encouraging a false teacher. That this is the case can be seen from the word “partaketh” (Greek koinoneo), which word means “a. to come into communion or fellowship , to become a sharer, be made a partner…b. to enter into fellowship, join one’s self as an associate, make one’s self a sharer, or partner…2 Jn. 11” (Thayer, pp. 351-352).
“I don’t think this will make my case any stronger than it is already, but for those who “cry out” that “fellowship” is always a noun they need to look at verse 11 of 2 John.  The word “partaketh” in its form is koinonei, and that is 3rd per. singular, present active indicative of koinoneo (which word was posted in our first section). If a person does not know that a verb “shows action,” then, indeed, he is not “as schooled” in “English” as he ought so to be.”
“I trust it is now clear why I have a section on this passage, and why I call it a “key” scripture for the battles being fought today in our own ranks.  Doctrine is important! We are to have “no fellowship” (Ephesians 5:11); “with the unfruitful works of darkness, but we are to “reprove them.” (Goebel Music, A Crucial Study of a Critical Subject: Fellowship, pp. 23-27).
I have given this lengthy quotation from Goebel Music’s pen, in order to emphasize that there is a limit to fellowship.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center violates this limit by using false religionists and promoting false teachers in their published materials.  For this reason, they are disqualified from receiving funds from faithful Christians and churches of Christ.  Please reference my earlier blog on the Warren Christian Apologetics Center and read the Book Reviews of Nobie Stone’s book, now twice published by the WCAC, titled, Genesis 1 And Lessons From Space. Nobie Stone continues to be used as a staff writer for Sufficient Evidence, a journal published by the WCAC under the direction of Charles Pugh III even though he teaches theistic evolution and is a mitigated skeptic.

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.

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.

The attempt to marry the truth of creation with the lie of evolution produces the false theory of theistic evolution.  This attempt conflates the work of creation accomplished and revealed by God.  It produces some serious consequences.  In addition to the consequences already discussed in parts I and II, please consider the following thoughts.

6.  Theistic Evolution obliterates biblical chronology.  The Bible provides us with a time scale for human history.  The earth and all other astronomical bodies are of the same age, except for the three day difference reported in the creation week.  The earth was created on day one along with the heavens and light (Gen. 1:1-3; 2:1).  The sun, moon, and stars were created on day four (Gen. 1:14-19).   Fowls and aquatic life were created on day five and animals and man were created on day six (Gen. 1:20-27).  Moses writes, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).  Most Theistic Evolutionists deny the historical reality of the Genesis account of creation and so upend the chronology of the Bible.  Genesis declares that all things had a beginning and that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning of creation and not billions of years later.  Francis Collins places the beginning of human beings at about 100,000 years ago while the universe began 14 billion years ago (The Language of God, 207)!  What a contrast to the words of Jesus Christ, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).  Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:38).  Adam is called by the apostle Paul the first man (I Cor. 15:45; first formed, then Eve, I Tim. 2:13).  If this is true, then, the heaven and the earth are only a few days older than Adam, not billions of years older.  We can estimate the age of the universe in terms of the genealogies of Christ recorded in Matt. 1 and Luke 3.  We must conclude, based upon the biblical evidence, that the universe is thousands not millions or billions of years old.  The chronology is interwoven with the genealogy of Christ.  If you alter the chronology, you alter the genealogy and dramatically impact Christology.  Two doctrines are affected:  the doctrine of creation and the doctrine of Christ.  John declares, “Whosoever transgresses and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.  He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 9).  Theistic Evolutionists do not abide in the doctrine of Christ.  Jesus Christ was the creator and He tells us how and whenHe did it (Col. 1:16; John 1:1-3).  Who are you going to believe– the Creator or Theistic Evolutionists?  Theistic Evolutionists not only reinterpret Gen. 1 and 2, but they also have to reinterpret most of the Bible!  They ascribe to a faulty hermeneutic that undermines faith in God’s Word by denying plain statements in the Bible including statements by Jesus and the apostles. Any doctrine that denies a plain statement in God’s Word is a false doctrine.

7.  Theistic Evolutionists misinterpret reality.  The theory of evolution which affirms that all of life has evolved from a single organism distorts reality.  All life comes from life and there is no evidence that life spontaneously generated from non-living substances.  The fossil record does not contain evidence of transitional forms indicating that one species could evolve into another species.  There is no evidence that shows how organisms that reproduced asexually could evolve by gradation into organisms that reproduce sexually (see F. LaGard Smith, Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem). Smith states, “Lacking any sexual DNA, mitosis could not have provided either the information or mechanism required for the radically different process of meiosis” (88).  Graham Bell, James McGill Professor at McGill University in Montreal, and author of the Masterpiece of Nature: the Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, provides the headline, “Queen of evolutionary problems.”  He states, “Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology.  Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion.  The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality” (Smith, 160). Smith utilizes McGill’s description of sexual reproduction as the queen of evolution’s problems.  He states, “Evolution theory teaches that the first organisms simply copied themselves. So, normative gendered sex as seen throughout Nature could not have begun without the appearance of the first-ever male and female organisms, mating in a never-before-seen way, and reproducing by revolutionary method of reducing their chromosomes precisely by half then blending those halves together to produce one-of-a-kind offspring. How those first-ever sexually reproducing organisms possibly could have evolved before sexual reproduction existed” is the queen of evolutionary problems (Smith, Darwins’ Secret Sex Problem, xxi). This is a strong argument against common descent.  Yet, Francis Collins affirms in The Language of God that, “the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable”   ( 136-137). Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, argues that “numerous independent lines of genomics evidence strongly support the hypothesis that our species shares a common ancestor with other primates” (J. P. Moreland, Theistic Evolution, 366-367).  According to these scientists, human beings descended from mice and monkeys.  Creationists believe that human beings are the result of special creation by God who formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul (Gen. 2:7).  Also, creationists believe that human beings were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).  Human beings are distinct from animals and possess an immortal soul.  When you compare Theistic Evolution with special creation you get two different views of reality.  Which view do you believe?

Theistic Evolution is not innocent.  Theistic Evolution involves the attempt to marry the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.  However, the result is not the truth, but another lie.  In Part I of this study, we considered three consequences of theistic evolution that sufficiently show the errors involved in this theory.  Now, we will consider more problems that this theory presents.

Fourth, some theistic evolutionists deny the incarnation of Jesus.  The idea of evolution and thus of “common descent” undermines the foundation of the incarnation of Jesus.  Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of the incarnation with evolutionary thought:  “The only way that I see of resolving the contradiction (between evolution and the incarnation of Jesus) is to ascribe a basic historical relativity to the person of Jesus Christ” (Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution? 96).  Theistic evolution contributes to a loss of meaning regarding the nature of Jesus Christ.  This fact violates I John 4:2-3 and identifies some theistic evolutionists as anti-Christ.  John writes, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Fifth, theistic evolution relativises the work of Jesus’ in redemption.  In the New Testament, Adam is identified as the first man (I Cor. 15:45; I Tim. 2:13).  Many theistic evolutionists deny that Adam was the first man and they deny that Adam was created by God directly.  They interpret Genesis 1 and 2 as myth and not as historic fact.  Francis Collins in his book, The Language of God, denies that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical reality.  Instead, he argues that they must be interpreted as symbolic allegory (myth).  Collins denies that Adam and Eve were historical humans that actually lived in the Garden of Eden.  He writes, “As noted previously, studies of human variation, together with the fossil record, all point to an origin of modern humans approximately a hundred thousand years ago, most likely in East Africa.  Genetic analyses suggest that approximately ten thousand ancestors gave rise to the entire population of 6 billion humans on the planet” (207).  Collins affirms that humans descended from great apes as part of an evolutionary process.  He states as tenets of theistic evolution, “Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes” (200).  How did humans come to possess a soul and express moral law?  Collins defers to C. S. Lewis for the explanation.  Lewis, a theistic evolutionist,  wrote the following explanation, “For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself.  He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all of the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated.  The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends.  Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say “I” and “me,” which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past…We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state, But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could become as gods…They wanted some corner of the universe of which they could say to God, “This is our business, not yours.” But, there is no such corner” (208-209).  Collins quoted at length from Lewis’ work, The Problem of Pain, 68-71. Both Collins and Lewis believe that God used evolution to create.  However, Collins affirms that once the process of evolution began, God ceased to have a part.  Yet, when quoting from Lewis, it appears that God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon animal creatures specially prepared by God.  After receiving this undefined spiritual infusion, the creature fell.  Thus we have Collins’ explanation for man’s soul and his fall into sin.  Jesus places the creation of the first man and woman at the beginning (Matt. 19:4-5; Gen. 1 and 2).  Paul spoke of Adam as a historical reality (Romans 5:12-21).  Paul connects the redemptive work of Christ (the second Adam) to the introduction of sin into the world by Adam.  He shows that Christ’s redemptive work is able to correct the spiritual loss brought about by Adam’s sin and the subsequent sins of human beings by providing atonement for sin.  If Adam is not a real, historical, person, how can we accept Jesus’ redemptive work as real?  Compare Lewis’ explanation of the origin of the soul of man with Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.”  Which seems more reasonable?  Which seems “historical” and which seems “mythical?”

Theistic Evolution attempts to marry a lie (the theory of evolution) with the truth (the creation of all things by God).  The result is a false theory.  Yet, theistic evolution is popular among evangelicals and other Christians.  Theistic evolutionists vary in their explanations of how God used evolution to create.  They are also married to the concept of an old earth (4 to 5 billion years) and an even older universe (approximately 14 billion years).  A good definition of theistic evolution is: “Broadly speaking, 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” (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 233). What are some of the consequences of theistic evolution?

First, there is the denial of central biblical teaching.  The Bible is the final authority in all matters that pertain to religion.  The apostle Paul believed everything that is written in the law and in the prophets (Acts 24:14).  Jesus authorized all the meaningful elements of the text of the Bible (Luke 16:17).  Jesus believed in the historical account of the creation of the first human couple (Matt. 19:4-5); the universality of the flood (Matt. 24:38-39); and the history of Jonah (Matt. 12:40-41).  Theistic evolutionists deny that God created all things in six days (Gen. 1; Exodus 20:11).  The theory of evolution demands long ages or periods of time.  This fact forces theistic evolutionists to alter the interpretation of Gen. 1 and 2 to accommodate long periods of time.  The problem with this is that it contradicts plain passages of Scripture.  It contradicts God and calls God a liar.

Second, theistic evolution misrepresents the nature of God.  The Triune God is creator of all things.  Jesus is the true God and the everlasting life (I John 5:20).  God the Father created all things through His Son (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16).  All things in the heavens, the earth and the sea (Exodus 20:11).  All things including things that are visible and invisible (Col. 1:16).  Everything God created was perfect and good.  In the theory of evolution, progress is brought about by pain and death.  The Darwinistic principle of “the survival of the fittest” means that superior organisms will win the battle for survival. The biblical principle of God’s nature (the goodness and the holiness of God) is distorted when death and ghastliness are presumed to be creative principles. Wolfgang Böhme, a theologian who supports evolution, even goes as far as to say that he regards sin as a harmless evolutionary factor. “If development has to go forward, sin is a marginal phenomenon at the edge of the great process of evolution, perhaps even a necessary feature.  Nature cannot sin.  Can man then be sinful when he is merely the product of nature, a link in the chain of nature’s creatures, taken from the earth to which we must someday return?” (Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution, 93).  If man is not capable of sin, the entire scheme of redemption revealed in God’s Word is useless.

Third, the nature of man is distorted.  The theory of evolution promotes the idea of common ancestry and affirms that human beings are the result of evolution from lower life forms.  In the book, Apes, five stages of development are considered:  orangutans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and human beings.  Francis Collins argues in The Language of God that “the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable” (The Language of God, 136-137).  Collins is a theistic evolutionist.  Evolutionists are materialists who deny the spiritual realities including that man has a soul.  Theistic evolution attempts to marry a purely materialistic explanation for life with a miraculous explanation for life (God’s creative acts).  Evolutionists would completely reject this attempt.  Here are some of the distinctions between animals and man: (1) The human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world; (2) Man possesses the faculty of speech.  He is able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for metalingual purposes; (3) Only man is fully bipedal; (4) only man is able to express emotions; (5) only man is created in the image of God; (6) Only man received the breath of God and became a living soul (I Thess. 5:23); (7) Only man can actually communicate with God; (8) Only man has free will and is accountable to God; (9) Only man has the faculty of creative thought.  Human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, and the capacity of cultural development (writing, music, historical awareness); (10) the Bible clearly differentiates between different types of flesh (I Cor. 15:39); (11) Only man receives the calling to become a child of God (John 1:12); and (12) Only man is an eternal being (Luke 16:19-31) (see Werner Gitt, Did God Use Evolution?, 68-70). (More to follow).