Why Evolution Is “A Hill Christians Want To Die On”
Posted by Job on September 14, 2010
Rod Dreher, the so-called “crunchy (environmentalist I guess) conservative” religious right Catholic, criticized the ouster of Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke from Reformed Theological Seminary over prattling the “evangelical evolution” heresy of Francis Collins. Quoting Dreher (and why is a Catholic getting into a dispute between those who left Catholicism to begin with?): “Why? It’s not clear, but this comes right after he was excoriated by other conservative Protestant figures for statements made in a video posted to the BioLogos website. (Full disclosure: BioLogos receives grant money from my employer, the John Templeton Foundation). According to an eyebrow-raising statement on the BioLogos site, Waltke stated in a video commentary that had been posted to the site that the church needed to come to terms with the fact of evolution, explaining that “if the data is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world. And rightly so, because we are not using our gifts and trusting God’s Providence that brought us to this point of our awareness.” He said that refusing to deal with science as it is will marginalize Christians.”
In case you missed it, Dreher states: “Full disclosure: BioLogos receives grant money from my employer, the John Templeton Foundation).” So, Dreher criticizes a Christian seminary for forcing out a person who disagrees with the position of someone that his employer gave grant money to, and it is safe to presume that his employer did so because he agrees with the agenda of BioLogos to get as many supporters of the “theistic evolution” heresy into evangelical seminaries and pulpits as possible. And since the list of seminaries and Bible colleges that affirm Biblical creation is small (see this list!), it looks like Dreher’s employers are getting what they are paying for.
Now after indulging in some Mark Noll type “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” type Protestant bashing, religious right Catholic Dreher (who has been prominently and positively covered by Christianity Today and Pat Robertson’s CBN) reveals that it is inerrancy, and ultimately the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, that is his real problem, and he conveniently quotes some “ex-evangelical” to portray the idea that Bible-believing Christians are actually Bible idolaters, because, you know, the Bible is inconvenient as it tends to restrict things like iconography (idolatry) and praying to “Virgin” Mary (idolatry) and to “saints” (idolatry). Dreher is able to get away with mocking Christian beliefs – including his several vicious attack on those who believe in the rapture – because he is conservative, and as a result religious right Ameri-Christians (the same who are embracing Glenn Beck) won’t go after him the way they did Barack Hussein Obama after his “clinging to God and guns” PRIVATE COMMENT.
But Albert Mohler clearly lays it out: evolution means no Adam and Eve. No Adam, and no original sin. No original sin, no need for the ministry and work of Jesus Christ for original sin on the cross, or for Jesus Christ to have been deity to perform this work, or to resurrect from the dead. Therefore, Christianity becomes semi-Pelagianism (like Dreher’s Catholicism) at best, a philosophical/ethical/political system around a failed revolutionary and reformer who left rambling, incomprehensible and incomplete teachings behind at worst, but generally for most people a works-based “earn your salvation” religion like Judaism, Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam. It is revealing that Karl Giberson, the “moderate Baptist” to whom Mohler responded, stated that evolution requires a Christian to formulate “new and better way to understand the origins of sin.” Of course, that requires a “new and better” religion than actual Christianity, and that is the whole point of evolution: rejection of Bible-based Christianity. As Rod Dreher belongs to a Catholicism that rejected legitimate Christianity over 1000 years ago, it is no coincidence at all that he supports others who also desire to turn others away from a Bible-based faith, the faith once delivered to the saints, and that he and others like him preach “tolerance”, “diversity”, “ecumenism”, “big-tent”, and denounce Biblical separation in favor of allowing people who reject the Bible to remain at our seminaries and Bible colleges and in our pulpits and congregations.
By the way, this is no “slippery slope” type of argument. Rejecting Biblical creation, trying to allegorize or symbolize Adam and Eve event, is no less than a rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Doing so pulls the very foundation away from the rest of the Bible, and as a result leaves no reason for the events of salvation history to have taken place to begin with. So yes, it is absolutely mandatory to have the position that one cannot believe in evolution and be a Christian, just as one cannot deny the deity of Jesus Christ or salvation by faith and do the same.
Now of course, the so-called evolutionary evangelicals will deny this. This is only because they are not being as intellectually honest as as Giberson. With no literal creation story, the doctrine of the cross as laid out by Paul in Romans (for instance) is totally unworkable and moot, because Paul’s federal headship atonement doctrine requires a literal, human Adam as the father of the human race. No first Adam, no need for a second Adam (Jesus Christ). And it also goes to the very heart of the meaning of Holy Spirit inspiration. For instance, it is obvious that Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve and wrote Bible texts based on it, including not the aforementioned Romans passages, but also the 1 Timothy 2:14 passage that denies women the ability to hold the office of pastor-teacher based on Adam receiving the command from God (and attending covenant responsibility), not Eve. Why would the Holy Spirit use something that Paul was completely in error about as a basis for such vital doctrines as original sin, atonement, and the role of women in the church? If Holy Scriptures – and its foundational doctrinal points no less – are based on grievous errors and lies, then in what respect can they be considered “holy”? People for whom the Bible is not the final authority do not care about these things, and neither do those who reject inerrancy. But the evangelical who claims that evolution is compatible with the Bible is either fooling himself by refusing to think these issues through, or fooling others by rejecting these doctrines within himself while still desiring to be defined as an evangelical for his own reasons (including but not limited to retaining influence and other benefits).
So Christians, despite the fact that the world is going to mock and reject you over it, the fact remains that you are going to have to continue to refuse to reject the evolution falsehood, even when that ravening wolf comes in a so-called evangelical sheep’s clothing.