Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: — | Date: February 20, 2022 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

All right, last time we looked at evolution. And as I mentioned, that’s really not my field to look at it on a scientific level. I’ve tried to keep up with the reading on it over the years. One shot at that is all I really cared to do. What we want to do today is look at the topic of theistic evolution. If you do not have a handout, raise your hand. Make sure you’ve got one. You’ll want to follow along. And here what we’ll be doing is looking not at scientific evidence against evolution or anything like that. What we’re looking at is the biblical teaching.

The question here now is, okay, you can say, and you can say it consistently, I think, that you believe in God and that you are an evolutionist. You can be a theistic evolutionist and be consistent with that, I think. But it’s another question to say, “I believe in theistic evolution and I believe the Bible.” That’s the question we’re taking up this morning. Are the two compatible? Can you say that you believe in evolution, God guided it, and I believe that the Bible teaches it or the Bible allows it? That’s the question we’re taking up this morning.

There are various levels of doctrine and there are various levels of doctrinal error. Some doctrinal errors are more difficult to judge. And so, for example, we tolerate differences here on some of the details of eschatology. I understand things correctly; Pastor Greg doesn’t. Those kinds of things, there are differences in details that good Christian interpreters have differed over the years. And those things, in the end, don’t amount to a whole lot.

There are other levels of doctrine that are more important. They are actually church-defining, such as, for example, the question of the subjects of baptism: who should be baptized—believers only, or believers and their children—and what does baptism do? Is it a symbol, a sign, or does it actually do something, accomplish grace? Those kinds of things define who the church is, and so although we have those on the other side of the fence, I’m glad to acknowledge that there are brothers and sisters in Christ and all of that. They’re church-defining issues that require some distinctions to be made.

There are other doctrines that just amount to heresy. And if they are taught in the church, it will end up destroying the gospel. And this question of creation—where do you put that in that leveling of doctrinal importance and doctrinal significance? I’m not sure where to plug it in the three levels that I just gave you, but it is a very serious matter. And I think we’ll see that at the end of next week. I’m going to take two weeks at this and look at the question of the Bible and theistic evolution.

What Is Theistic Evolution?

First of all, you’ll want to follow along in your outline. What is theistic evolution? Theistic evolution simply affirms that God created the initial matter from nothing. He did that about 14 billion years ago. But from there, it has all been an unguided process of development. And they’ll want to acknowledge a kind of providence, but their definition of providence is very fuzzy. It’ll be something like the same providence involved in photosynthesis, something like that.

But the whole process of evolution—and this is important for the theistic evolutionist—it’s an unguided process. There’s no intrusion, no intervention from God on His part. God created the matter, the original stuff, but He’s not directly the creator of living creatures. There’s no intervention to make that happen. It’s a mystery how life arose from non-life, but there’s no supernatural intervention that made that happen according to theistic evolution.

Humans now are a part of that gradualism and that development. And although we have some uniqueness to us because of our spiritual nature and our relationship to God and all of that, still, it’s a mystery how life arose and how humans developed. And so they can acknowledge some kind of providence in it all, but exactly what that means is a little fuzzy because there’s no such thing as direct intervention on God’s part.

So for the beginning of humanity, for theistic evolution, there are as many as 10,000 human-like ancestors to the ancestors of the human race. It is not Adam and Eve. This is an essential point for theistic evolution: to deny that Adam and Eve were literal people from whom the rest of humanity came. That is an essential matter for them.

So the options for Adam and Eve for a theistic evolutionist is that they are teaching models, allegorical figures to represent God’s relationship with humanity or something like that, but they are not to be taken at their face value. Some may say that they’re symbolic or representative figures of a community of Neolithic farmers, something like that. God created the original stuff; it has developed into life and into human life until finally there’s a human, humanity as a species of some kind, and Adam and Eve are just representative samples of that.

Now you can see with all of that, at the heart of theistic evolution is the claim that Genesis 1 to 3 is not historical. Genesis 1 to 3 is not historical. It’s figurative, it’s allegorical, however you want to say it, but it’s not factual as you read it on the face of it. So you have to reinterpret Genesis 1 to 3 other than the way you would if you just sat down and read it the first time and tried to understand what it was saying.

So there are other factors. For the evolutionists, it is supposedly the scientific data that is driving them to their conclusions, and so now they have to take that to Genesis 1 to 3 and reinterpret it accordingly. So “created from the dust of the ground” does not mean created from the dust of the ground; that’s allegorical, it’s symbolical of something. So also with the creation of Eve: “created from Adam’s rib” doesn’t mean that God took out a rib and made the woman; it means something else, it’s representative of some spiritual truth.

12 Points Of Conflict Between Theistic Evolution And The Scriptures

And I have on your outline there 12 points of conflict between theistic evolution and the scriptures by Wayne Grudem. I mentioned last time that the book—I have it listed there—is Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique. Here’s the book, if anybody would like to look at it. I should give you some background.

There was a period when we still lived up in Lansdale here. We were getting spam calls on the phone multiple times every day, every day. And I was really tired of it. And I really believe that… I don’t believe you have a right, you have an obligation to answer those calls. But I do believe if you answer it, you should be courteous. I wasn’t. I was fed up with it. There was another one. You can always tell which was the spam call because it would give the city, like Philadelphia or New York, or it would say even Lansdale or something. Pick it up and it’s some spam call trying to sell me something or whatever.

Phone rang one day and it said, “Phoenix.” Oh, here we go again. And I was just in the wrong mood. “Hello?” “Is Fred Zaspel there?” “Yes.” Just as gruff as I could be. “May I speak with him, please?” “Yes.” “Is this Fred Zaspel?” “Yes. How can I help you?” “Fred, this is Wayne Grudem calling.” I’m sorry, Wayne. This is the first time Wayne Grudem and I ever talked. And I explained, “I thought you were spam, I’m sorry.” Anyway, he was calling to ask if I’d contribute a chapter to this book, and he still did. He’s much nicer than I am.

But that’s how this book got started. That’s how my involvement in the book got started. But there are three categories of it: scientific, philosophical, and theological critique. So the three dimensions and the three main editors involved handle those categories. J.P. Moreland handles philosophical categories. J.P. Moreland is wonderfully qualified for that. He’s trained as a scientist. He’s trained as a philosopher. And understanding the philosophy of science has been his background. And it’s just a masterful critique on that level. Stephen Meyer handles the scientific data. Stephen is one of the forefront scientists involved in this whole discussion of intelligent design and things like that. He’s got a few more books that have come out as well. And as I mentioned, I think, a couple weeks ago, this is not your grandfather’s creationist. The work they’ve done is just wonderfully sophisticated and really, really good. And then the theological dimension of it, Wayne Grudem was the editor of that. And it evaluates theistic evolution on a biblical level, and I have a chapter in that. If you want to deal with the subject in depth, that’s the book you get today. You’re welcome to come look at it if you’d like afterwards.

Anyway, Wayne gives 12 points of conflict between scripture and theistic evolution.

1. Adam and Eve were not the first human beings. Perhaps they never even existed. All right, this is theistic evolution. Adam and Eve were not the first human beings.
2. Adam and Eve were born of human parents, which is pretty much the same as number one.
3. God did not act directly or specifically to create Adam out of the dust from the ground.
4. God did not directly create Eve from a rib taken from Adam’s side.
5. Adam and Eve were never sinless human beings.
6. Adam and Eve did not commit the first human sin. Human beings were doing morally wrong things before Adam and Eve.
7. Human death did not begin as a result of Adam’s sin, for human beings existed long before Adam and Eve, and they were always subject to death.
8. Not all human beings have descended from Adam and Eve, for there were thousands of other human beings on earth at the time that God chose the two of them as Adam and Eve.
9. God did not directly act in the natural world to create different kinds of fish, birds, land animals.
10. God did not rest from His work of creation or stop any creative activity after plants, animals, and human beings appeared on the earth.
11. God never created an originally “very good” natural world in the sense of a safe environment that was free of thorns and thistles and similar harmful things.
12. After Adam and Eve sinned, God did not place any curse on the world that changed the workings of the natural world and made it more hostile to mankind.

Now these are essential to theistic evolutionists today. Wayne has culled these from the theistic evolutionists themselves. This is no misrepresentation of it. These are essential to it. You can see a couple of things here that I want to highlight before we move on.

What’s essentially important for the theistic evolutionist is that Genesis 1 to 3 cannot be understood on its face value. Got to reinterpret it somehow. It’s picturesque, it’s allegorical, it’s symbolic, it’s something, but it’s not as you read it. It has to be something else. And then number two, centrally important—and this is probably the center of the debate today in the whole discussion—and that is the historicity of Adam. And with that, of course, Adam and Eve. That’s the center of the debate today. That’s determinative. If there was an original Adam and Eve, there’s no such thing as theistic evolution for humankind. So those two issues together—theistic evolution, the historicity of Adam—they focus on Adam, but they… we have to remain alert to these 12 things that are listed here. This is what is essential to evolution.

The Historicity Of Adam

So our question is, what does the Bible say about these 12 points? And in particular, let’s look and see what the Bible has to say about Adam as a historical figure. Now I’ve already done some of that in a lesson a few weeks ago. We looked at the way the Bible treats Genesis 1 and 2 in the rest of scripture. But we’ll survey just a little bit of it here and then move on.

First of all, the debate begins, as I’ve mentioned, in Genesis 1 to 3. And we’ve pointed out before that Genesis 1 to 3 reads like a historical narrative. If it doesn’t read as a historical narrative, you don’t know that from Genesis 1 to 3. Something else had to tell you that. It reads like a historical narrative. “These are the generations of Adam.” And “God said,” and “God said,” and “God said,” and “God said, ‘Let there be,’ and there was,” and “God said, ‘Let there be,’ and there was.” It reads like a historical narrative. On the face value of it, that’s what it looks like.

Genesis 2 and verse 7: “God formed the man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Sounds like a historical statement, although it is a frank supernaturalism. That’s the claim. In the beginning God, and He did all of this, and then He formed the man from the dust of the ground. And so also He took out a rib and made the woman. On any reading, this is not any kind of evolutionary development. That idea has to be brought in from somewhere else.

In Genesis 1, Moses makes the point, and he stresses it repeatedly, that God made “after its kind.” He made the trees and the plants after their kinds. He made the animals after their kinds. Whether that means genus or species or whatever after that is the second discussion. And certainly there are subspecies that can be developed. That’s not the issue here at all. But the point is there are defined kinds, classes of creatures, that as we’ve seen just briefly and we’ll see again in the videos later, all the fossil record testifies to that. There’s no evolutionary tree of life, there are no transitional forms, but animals were made after their kind.

And then we saw briefly that Genesis 1 and 2 not only reads like a historical narrative, but Genesis 1 and 2 actually ties to the following narrative on which the whole narrative of the Bible builds. So we have the beginning of the universe, Genesis 1; we have the beginning of man; we have the story of humanity; and then at the end of the Bible, it’s brought to its climax. Genesis 1 to 3, we have established for us the setting, and then we have the problem, and then we have the meaning of the story defined for us, and on the plot goes.

From Genesis 1 onward through the rest of the Bible, it reads like a historical narrative, and in fact, the rest of the Bible depends on Genesis 1 to 3 as a historical narrative. We’ll see more of that as we go along. It’s clearly intended for us in Genesis 1 to 3 to take it at face value. We have Genesis 4 then next, and there we have Adam’s descendants. And we have the beginning of humanity. We’ll see that in time to come as well. Genesis 5, we have more of Adam’s progeny. And there we have the genealogies that are listed for us.

All of the rest of Genesis builds on that. All of the rest of the Bible builds on that historical narrative. You have Adam and Eve. You have Cain. You have Abel. You have Seth. And then from Seth you have Noah, and you have Abraham, and from Abraham you have the nation of Israel, and you have King David, and you have the promise, and you have it all the way through to Jesus. In the New Testament, the whole story depends on this narrative that begins in the early chapters of Genesis.

So I’d like to ask, if Genesis 1 to 3 is not historical narrative, how do you know that? You certainly don’t know it from Genesis 1 to 3. And what we’ll see now is that you don’t know it from the rest of the Bible either.

So on your outline later, Old Testament now. We’ve seen this; I can just mention it and move on. We saw in the Psalms and we saw in Isaiah, those two in particular, where the doctrine of creation is articulated and Genesis 1 and 2 are echoed in poetic ways in the Psalms, but it’s taken at face value. The creative acts of God in Genesis 1 and 2 are taken in the Psalms and in Isaiah as ground for praise. They’re taken as ground for trust. And that ground for praise and that ground for trust is eliminated if Genesis 1 to 3 are taken in any other way but historical. We have again in 1 Chronicles 1, we have a genealogy from Adam to Seth to Enosh and his descendants and on through to Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth. It even goes to Esau and Jacob and finally to David. All of that builds together and hangs together.

Well, we’ve seen some of the Old Testament before, let’s move on. Oh, the New Testament. By the way, let me say something here, kind of an apology. I’m going to go through a lot of passages this morning, and then we’re going to do it again next week. If that seems tedious to you, I’m sorry, but I want to… I decided I want to take the time to give you a sense of how fundamental the historicity of Adam and Eve is to the rest of the Bible, to its story, to its theological propositions. We’ll see that next week as well. And so we’re going to take our time and do it.

Luke chapter three. If you want to turn to that, just glance at the passage; it might be helpful to you to get it in mind. In Luke chapter three, beginning with verse 23, we have a genealogy of Jesus. And then notice verse 38, Luke 3:38. It’s tracing it all the way backwards now: “…the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” So it takes Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam. I suspect that part of Luke’s point here is to point up Jesus as the second Adam, which we’ll see more of in time to come. But at the very least, you have to see here that Adam appears among dozens of historical figures. And Adam is placed at the head of it in a linear genealogical line. All human beings, according to Luke now, descend from Adam. And then as I say, I think he’s pointing to Jesus as the new Adam, the new representative head of the human race.

If you’d like to look at Acts chapter 17. Here’s Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill. He’s in Athens. He’s confronting these pagans who have their altars to all of these other gods, among which is the one, the altar to “the unknown God.” Paul is stirred. He wants to talk to them about that God. And he starts out with creation. But look at verse 26: “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” Notice that. All of the nations made from one man. Now there’s an unmistakable reference there to Adam. It’s referring back to Genesis 1:27–28 that we have seen. And he even emphasizes it here: “every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” He could hardly be more exhaustive. Everybody comes from Adam. That’s what Paul says. Adam’s the ancestor of every living person.

Now let’s go to the epistles. Look at 1 Corinthians 11. Some of these passages involve questions that will inevitably arise, so I’m going to take just a minute to answer some of those, to give the passage, a summary of the passage, but then we’ll narrow it to our point at hand. 1 Corinthians 11 has to do with the role of women in the church. Never any questions about that. 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s talking about… well, let’s pick it up with verse two.

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.”

Here’s our verses: “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord, the woman is not independent of the man nor the man of the woman. For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. All things are from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it’s a disgrace for him? But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”

All right, this passage that’s often so puzzling, I’ll try to give a brief overview of it. What Paul is dealing with here was evidently a problem in the church where women were there with their heads uncovered. In that world—notice that he calls it a symbol of authority in verse 10—in that world, the head covering was a symbol of authority. And so because it is a symbol of her submission to her head, her husband, because it’s a symbol of that, it becomes a theological issue that Paul has to address in the church. Evidently, some had flouted that custom and were in the church, and Paul is saying that that is… it’s not reflecting the order that ought to be in the home or the church.

I don’t think the head coverings for women is still the issue today in our society, in our culture. It does not symbolize what it did then, and so the theological significance of it becomes lost. In another culture, it might be long sleeves on a woman or something like that where it becomes a theological issue, but that’s the principle at hand here. Paul gives his ordering then; she should keep her head covered. Notice his reasoning. Now that’s our point here this morning. Verse eight: “because man was not made from woman, but woman from man.” That is, the order of creation was God’s declaration from the beginning of the ordering of the structure of authority in the home.

Paul does this in Timothy as well. His reason is not, “We have a cultural issue here, the head covering,” but his reason for enforcing that cultural issue is a creation issue. Man was created first—God’s declaration of the headship—and that ought to be reflected. Verse 9: “neither was man created for woman, but woman for the man.” She was created to be his helpmeet. That’s not said of him. He was not created to be her helpmeet. She is created to be his helpmeet. And that is to be reflected in everything about them. So when we come to apply this to a specific issue at hand—here are the head coverings—let’s keep them on because it reflects the ordering of creation.

Now, what do we have here then for our point? Paul’s obviously referring to Genesis 1 and 2 here. We draw from this: number one, Paul regards Adam and Eve as historical persons. His whole entire argument rests on that. Adam and Eve were historical people. And then number two, Paul understands the woman to have been created from the man and for the man. That excludes any kind of evolution. So there’s Paul’s understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 in 1 Corinthians.

Now 2 Corinthians 11. “I wish you would bear with me a little foolishness. Do bear with me. For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”

All right, Paul here is dealing with false teaching that has crept into the church at Corinth; somewhere evidently at least flirting with it. And Paul takes up this metaphor of “I’ve betrothed you to Christ. And now comes this other Jesus.” Interesting how Paul describes false gospels. They use the name Jesus, but they define the gospel in a different way. And Paul says, that’s a different Jesus. That’s not the one I’m preaching to you. And so Paul says to the people of Corinth here, “Here you are now flirting with this other Jesus. I’ve betrothed you to the real Jesus. And you’re all flirting with this one because of the false teaching that’s coming in.”

And then he gives the illustration in verse three: “But I’m afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.” Two things here that are important for our point. Number one, the historical Satan, the historical Eve, the historical fall—all of those are assumed. They’re implicit here, as Paul has implied them directly. Historical Satan, historical Eve, and a historical fall. That’s Paul’s reading of Genesis 3. Also, we can say more than that: we have here also the original innocence and the original sinlessness of Eve. So Paul is taking the Genesis account—here Genesis chapter three—at face value. That’s Paul’s understanding of it.

All right, another one: 1 Timothy chapter two. Here’s another passage ripe for discussion as well. Hopefully we can get past it and get to the point at hand. Here Paul is dealing with church order, specifically gender roles in the church. His point is male leadership, and he gives some specific commands in that regard. 1 Timothy 2, I’ll begin with verse 8.

“I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling. Likewise, that also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man. Rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control.”

All right, again, he’s dealing with gender ordering specifically here in the church. Obviously speaking of male leadership, he puts a restriction on the women’s involvement. Verse 11: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” The plain statement is pretty clear. There’s been mountains and mountains of literature written on this, especially with the evangelical feminists trying to get around this.

I spoke one time with a noted theologian who was egalitarian, a man I respect greatly in every other way. We were talking about this passage. He mentioned his support for women pastors, women preachers. I said, “What do you do with 1 Timothy 2, verses 11 and following?” He said, “Well, do you realize there are”—I forget the number he gave me, I’ll say six—”Do you realize there are six very difficult exegetical questions in that passage?” I said, “Well, I hadn’t counted them before. Are you suggesting that any of them makes the command of verse 11 or 12 unclear? Paul is prohibiting something. What is it?” Says he’s not allowed to teach or to exercise authority.

And that expression translated here, “exercise authority,” has been the subject of much discussion as well. The old King James mistranslated that as “usurping authority,” giving it a negative connotation. Like a woman can have authority, but she shouldn’t take it in a negative sense, assume it when it’s not hers. And that’s the way some translations give that. I think the new edition of the NIV translates it that way: “assume authority” or something like that. Leaves it open to some interpretation. The Greek word here is very simple and straightforward. Plenty of studies have been done on it. Just means don’t let her exercise authority. We have two prohibitions: don’t teach, don’t exercise authority in the church. That’s the two.

Well, that’s the lesson Paul is teaching here. But now our point is not that. Our point is, what is Paul’s view of Adam and Eve and the creation narrative? Well, notice Paul’s, again, his reasoning for it. “I don’t permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over man, but she’s to remain quiet.” Why? “For Adam was formed first and then Eve.” So there’s this first reason: the order of creation was God’s ordering of the home. It was not a mere accident that Adam was formed first. That was God’s declaration of ordering in the home. And then verse 14, second reason: “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became the transgressor.”

Lots of discussion has arisen around that as well. What is Paul saying there? Is Paul saying that women are less apt to teach? I don’t think that’s what he’s saying here. I think he’s saying that the order of what he mentions in verse 13 was subverted. He is saying in verse 14 that that order mentioned in verse 13 was subverted with Eve, and she stepped out from her role, and look what came as a result.

So now for our point now, returning to the point at hand with theistic evolution: Paul here assumes the historicity of Adam and Eve, that’s one. Two, he assumes the historicity of the satanic temptation, the historicity of the fall. He assumes the created order: that Adam was created first, that Eve was created after Adam and from him. And then fourth, this is the ground now, Paul says, for church order. So Paul’s grounding of church order is the created order. Paul assumes the created order as it reads in Genesis 1 to 3. That’s Paul’s view of Genesis.

Let’s look at another one quickly: Jude verse 14. Jude, verse 14. Here, Jude is dealing with the false teachers, the apostates who have come in, turned away from the gospel, and he really is letting them have it. You’re familiar with Jude. Esther Boyd took us through this a year or two ago. Jude 14: “It was also about these”—that is, these false teachers—”that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord comes with 10,000 of His holy ones.'” Now notice here, he confirms the historicity of Enoch. That’s Genesis 5. He confirms the historicity of Adam. Enoch is the seventh from Adam, so he affirms the historicity of the genealogy, the reliability of the genealogy of Genesis 5.

All right, I’ve taken time to look through a lot of these just to point out that it is impossible to take the biblical writers seriously and deny the historicity of Genesis 1 to 3. You have to say that if Genesis 1 to 3 were not historical but allegorical, Paul misunderstood it, Paul taught wrong, and so did Jude, and so on it goes. In fact, there are other passages as well, but I think we will probably get to those next week. First of all, are there any questions on this much? Yes?