All that Glitters...

...may not be a duck...

World Magazine has an article on the BioLogos Foundation. BioLogos "invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation." BioLogos president Deb Haarsma says that "churches that support evolution will be more effective witnesses in a culture that reveres science, and will help college students avoid a crisis of faith when biology professors argue for evolution." Because, you see, biology professors cannot be wrong or even challenged and Creation as explained in Scripture cannot be right.

First among their Core Commitments is, "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible." By "the historical Christian faith" they do not mean "the historical Christian faith" as in "the view that the Church has historically held" because they're necessarily needing to rewrite the Bible when it runs up against evolution. They offer, for instance, three possible views for Adam and Eve. Perhaps they were an actual historical couple living 10,000 years ago among many living then that were chosen to represent the rest of humanity. Or maybe the text is not literal, but merely allegorical. Maybe not even allegorical, but simply a parable. Because, you see, the goal is to push "churches and believers to embrace evolution, and in the process change how they read the Bible." So Adam and Eve in the Bible aren't nearly as cut and dried as you might think. The rest of Scripture that refers to these two apparently in ignorance as if they were the genuine progenitors of the race is, well, mistaken. Luke's link of Christ to Adam (Luke 3:38) and Paul's suggestion that Adam was real (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22) or that the whole Adam and Eve story was real (1 Tim 2:13-14) and Jude's suggestion that Enoch was seven generations from Adam (Jude 1:14) are all ... cough ... errors. In no version did Sin actually descend from Adam because evolution tells us so. But that's okay. "We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible."

This isn't really surprising, is it? Didn't John say, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us." (1 John 2:19)? Didn't Paul warn the Ephesians, "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30)? So I would urge you as Paul urged them: "Therefore be alert." All that quacks "We embrace the historical Christian faith" is not necessarily a Christian duck. Anyone willing to discard historic orthodoxy to "be more effective witnesses" and "avoid a crisis of faith" when challenged by unbelievers may well not be among the defenders of historic orthodoxy. Thus I find it necessary "to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3).