Evolutionary “Adam” and “Evangelical” Scholarship

I like John Byl’s stuff.  He doesn’t post often, but he is worth following.

Here is an informative post about the spread of evolutionism in the PCA in the form of two books about Adam; one by Peter Enns, the other by C. John Collins.

As someone who “naively” believes what the Bible says, I want to say, “Are you guys kidding?”

PCA Divided On Biblical Adam


While not as good as Byl’s piece, a while back I wrote something about Tremper Longman’s errant views:

Tremper Longman, “Adam,” and Teaching the Truth (1)

Tremper Longman, “Adam,” and Teaching the Truth (2)

13 thoughts on “Evolutionary “Adam” and “Evangelical” Scholarship”

    1. I was interested to see that an upcoming conference promoted by Logos at which Pastors are supposedly to be edified features Peter Enns. But then for all their useful study tools, they have tended toward the liberal side of things for a while and from what I’ve seen of recently featured books I’d have to say it only looks like it is getting worse.

      Having been a former evolutionist (up until age 34) I’ve been continually dismayed and saddened by how many professing Christians are still stuck on the bogus paucity that is called the theory of evolution. I would have never come to faith in Christ if I hadn’t first become convinced that evolution doesn’t cut the mustard. If I believed evolution today, I’d have to throw away both the gospel and my Bible.

      These Christian evolutionists are just plain goofy. They don’t seem to understand science or their own Bible.

  1. While I’m being chagrined:

    I am also chagrined to see how Tremper Longman is all over the evangelical world as the House Evangelical OT Authority. He just does not impress me. Anyone reading my Proverbs book (particularly the appendix on authorship) gets that point, I think.

    1. I know what you mean on the PCA. But all the rivers run into the cesspool. I am very uneasy about the onset of evolutionism in evangelicalism. I think scholarship has gone awry on this and many other points. The lines are pretty blurred.

      I have not seen your Proverbs book, but I’m sure it’s worthy. I feel a little shy about admitting that I have yet to give your “World-Tilting Gospel” the time it deserves. I know you aren’t looking for a plug, but I would like to be able to encourage folks to get it.

      While I’m being nice to you, i should tell you I appreciated your piece on Westminster Seminary. I can’t say how greatly I prize Van Til, Murray & co., even where I don’t agree with them. I like Oliphint’s material too.

  2. I feel this decay as you say is going around all over evangelicalism that even dispensationalism is not immune. I have just recently found, to my horror, that a large number of dispensationalists as at 2012 accept critical scholarship’s conclusions that the Apostle John did not author any of the Johannine works – to put this in plain English they don’t believe John wrote the Book of John or 1,2 and 3 John at all!

    These people are in no way liberals – they accept 6-day literal earth day creation, young earth, everything.

  3. Can men who deny a literal Adam even be considered genuine believers? Scripture teaches the universal condemnation of the human race in Adam (Rom. 5:12). If there was no literal Adam, universal condemnation evaporates, and works-based righteousness becomes a theoretical possibility. Doesn’t this undermine the Gospel?

    1. Steven, I was thinking along the same lines. When one pulls on the thread of a literal Adam, the whole warp and woof of the fabric of the doctrine of Scripture as well as the gospel of gracious salvation unwinds.

      I had a Christian friend ask me recently if both Jesus and Paul were simply adapting to the expectations of their culture and time by thinking of Adam as the real first man. I just stared at him for a while until he skulked off in shame. Frankly, I was speechless!

  4. Sometimes unbelievers have a more sensible understanding of what evolution means for Christianity than many believers:

    “Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission on the wrong planet. Sin becomes not an ugly fate due to man’s disobedience, but only the struggle of instincts. Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because 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. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! Christianity, if it is to survive, must have Adam and the original sin and the fall from grace or it cannot have Jesus the redeemer who restores to those who believe what Adam’s disobedience took away.” — Bozarth, G.R., The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, 1978, 20:30.

    1. Steven, Eric and Tony,

      Sound common sense and a plain reading of Scripture always go together. Thanks for two examples of scriptural reasoning. To me the seminaries (Westmont, Covenant, Knox, etc.) who hire these men are transgressing God’s clear Word and have their eyes, not on Truth, but upon academic kudos. It sickens me.

      Sorry it took me a while to acknowledge your comments. This little debate with S. Hays is one reason for that.


  5. Quick lesson on the Theory of Evolution:

    There is micro evolution and there is macro evolution.

    Is micro evolution real? Yes. It’s called dog breeding. It was known about in ancient Mesopotamia. It is being done at ever smaller scale today, but it is dog breeding still nevertheless.

    Is macro evolution (i.e. fish turning into race horses) real? If it is, there is no evidence for it. So right now it’s as real as Puff the Magic Dragon. (Note to Peter Enns: those pictures you see in evolution text books are *illustrations*. They are not photographic evidence. I understand that when you see a ‘picture’ of something you have a strong inclination to then believe in its existence, but in this case they are merely human-drawn illustrations.)

    1. Referring to dog breeding as micro-evolution is pretty misleading. Micro-evolution claims specialization leading to improved traits under mutation guided by natural selection alone. Dog breeding involves the application of human intelligence as the selecting agent. This is a huge difference. The common aspect between the two examples is that both result in a net loss of genetic richness (information) and reduced ability to respond to environmental stresses.

  6. My point was the operative science claimed by evolutionists for their Theory of Evolution is basically dog breeding at ever smaller scale.

    There is a constant bait and switch by evolutionists on the public regarding the operative science of micro-evolution and the historical or speculative science of Darwinian macro-evolution. Yes, it’s dishonest and meant to be. They don’t want to give up the ax they’ve been using so successfully to cut down the tree of orthodox biblical doctrine, despite the lack of evidence for macro evolution and despite the decrease in help from the various evolution hoaxes that propelled them so much throughout the 20th century.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s