created by God and continued so until he fell and brought the pen alty of death upon him. Had Adam not sinned, he would have continued living in the body God gave him. This meaning is includ ed in God’s words in Genesis 2:17, “But o f the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat o f i t : for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (cf. Rom. 4:12-14). It was in view of this God-assigned, casual relation between sin and death that Jesus died for sin as the sinner’s substitute. Death is punishment for sin, not a con dition inherited from alleged ani mal ancestors. 5. Adam’s High Intelligence Theistic evolution has difficulty in accounting for Adam’s high inte lligence . Genesis presents Adam as capable o f naming ani mals and having conversation with God (2:16-19; 3:8-19). The istic evolution, however, logically views man as only slightly re moved from the animal stage for many generations. The change in physical form at the transition point between animal and human is thought of as minimal, so that the new human had to make con siderable physical progress before arriving at the level of modem man. Physica l anthropologists hold in particular that the cranial size of early man had to grow be fore modem intelligence was pos sible. Theistic evolutionists, who accept this thinking, have real difficulty in reconciling it with the Biblical presentation. Either they must deny Adam’s high intelli gence or deny this evolutionistic thinking, and to do the latter would remove much o f the basis for holding to theistic evolution at all. 6. Adam’s High Moral State Theistic evolution finds similar difficulty in accounting fo r Adam’s high moral state. Not only did Adam have intelligence for talking with God but moral understanding and behavior. God saw him as perfectly righteous prior to his eating o f the for
bidden fruit. But theistic evolu tion logically holds that man only gradually emerged from the non- moral state of the animal, having first to leam the nature of right and wrong before altering his be havior pattern. Those who hold to the modified form of theistic evolution, believing that God in serted a perfect soul into an evolved body, have attempted to avoid this difficulty, but still must explain the strange anomaly of such a perfect soul suddenly tak ing control of a body so slightly removed from the completely un inhibited stage of the animal. 7. Symbolic View of Early Chapters of Genesis Theistic evolutionists find it necessary to interpret a substan tial part of the early chapters of Genesis symbolically. They are forced to this manner of interpre tation because of these serious conflicts we have been noticing. A literal view o f these chapters will not allow for theistic evolu tion. Accordingly, it is said, for example, that the description of God forming the various groups of plants and animals on their re spective days is only symbolic language for the actual, evolu tionary process by which they de veloped ; or that the description of Eve’s formation from a portion of Adam’s body is again only sym bolic of woman’s recognized sub servience to man, apart from any significance as to how the human level was reached. In reply, it must be stated firm ly that the Bible does not allow for this manner of interpretation. It is true that symbolism does occur in the Bible. Metaphor, simile, parable, allegory and oth er forms are found frequently. But these forms of symbolism are clearly distinguished. They are written as symbolism, so that the reader is immediately aware of them. However, the opening chap ters of Genesis are written as his tory. There is no indication of symbolism. In plain, concise style, the reader is informed as to what God created on each o f the six
creative days. Plants were made before fish and birds, fish and birds before animals, animals be fore man, Adam before Eve. This is history, not symbolism. I f this language can be taken symbolical ly, there is no apparent reason why one could not interpret many other Scripture portions the same way. It must also be noticed that the Bible in other places becomes af fected if the opening chapters of Genesis are taken symbolically. The reason is that events related in these chapters are mentioned elsewhere as well. When they are, they are recorded as history. For instance, F irs t T imothy 2:13 speaks of Adam as having first been formed and then Eve. The language is clear and factual. Cer tainly no one would say that Paul was speaking symbolically. How ever, if he was not, then he be lieved that Eve had no existence until after Adam’s creation; and if he believed this, then theistic evolutionists, in holding to sym bolic interpretation in Genesis, are saying nothing less than that Paul was mistaken and that the Bible at this point is in error. Similar observations can be made in respect to such other passages as Romans 5:14; First Corinthi ans 11:8, 12; 15:22; Second Co rinthians 11:3; and First Timo thy 2:14. CONCLUSION A concluding statement may be brief. Theistic evolution is in seri ous conflict with the Bible. Though assertions are made that the two agree, these assertions are false. The seven points of con flict observed are not minor in significance and cannot be disre garded, nor should they be mini mized. □ 'Cf. J. Barton Payne, “ The Concept of ‘Kind’ in Scriptures,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, X (June, 1958), pp. 17-20. 2For instance, the doctrine of Adam’s federal headship of the human race requires it (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Printed from THE BAPT I ST BULLETIN, April, 1967. Used by permission.
26
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter