CRC Banner & Speaking Of Evolution — Happy Birthday Darwin II

Recently, Christian Reformed Church flagship magazine, “The Banner” ran a three-page article on evolution arguing that theistic evolution (now called Evolutionary Creationists) is a viable alternative for Christians to embrace. The article was written by a couple who teaches at Calvin College and who work in the Physics and Astronomy departments. The article was excruciatingly basic and it was plugging a recent book that the Professor have recently written. I want to take a few minutes to examine some of the quotes in the article.

http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1935

“For example, modern species of dogs and wolves and coyotes descended from some ancestral wolf-like species that no longer exists. Similarly, all dogs, cats, and other mammals descended from a common ancestor even longer ago.

Evolutionary Creationists combat evolutionism by attacking the first premise. They argue that God could work through biological evolution to create the species, just as God works through natural processes like evaporation and condensation to govern rainfall.”

From a Christian perspective of anthropology the statements of the Haarsma’s is fraught with grave danger. Indeed, the danger is so grave in these statements that the whole Christian faith could conceivably be overturned.

The Haarsma’s are telling us that it is acceptable to believe that all mammals (and keep in mind that man is a mammal) descended from (and so necessarily evolved from) a common ancestor. If this is true then the act of God in creating man as the piece de resistance of His creation is overturned. Likewise, any idea of man as uniquely bearing the image of God seems likewise overturned. The Haarsma’s are required to answer, if their supposition as evolutionary creationists is true that man has descended and evolved from a common ancestor, where in the evolutionary process man was stamped with the Imago Dei. When and where did God, in the evolutionary creationist myth, breathe into man the breath of life?

Also the Haarsma’s must answer in their evolutionary creationist paradigm when, where and how sin entered into the world.

Another problem in the Haarsma’s evolutionary creationism worldview is the presumption that all is evolutionary process. This presumption requires the belief that nature is going from something inferior to something superior (hence the term “evolution”). The problem though is that in Scripture the assumption is just the reverse. The assumption in scripture is not that everything is going from inferior to superior but rather that in creation we had the superior (the creation that was declared “good” and “very good”) which gave way to an inferior state (we might should call it devolution) called “The Fall.” The Christian story is Creation, Fall, Redemption, Glorification. For the Haarsma’s the Christian story seems to be Creation, evolution, Glorification.

Another problem in the Haarsma’s article is that in the Scriptures we clearly see man being distinct from the animals. Man is charged to name the animals thus showing his un-relatedness to the animals. And yet the Haarsma’s would have us believe that Man, having a common descendant with all animals has a basic relatedness to the animals.

Now, I’ve raised some questions here and to be fair to the Haarsma’s they did say in the article that there book attempts to answer questions that the article did not have space to address. But I will go out on a limb here and say, without reading their book, that evolutionary creationism can’t be harmonized with Scripture without doing serious damage to scripture.

The primary message to the ancient Hebrews was about the who and why of creation—that Israel’s God is the sovereign creator of all and humans are God’s image bearers—not the when and how of creation.

This is a HUGE assumption. Where in and from Scripture does Scripture teach that Scripture isn’t concerned with the when and how of creation? One just can’t assume these things without proving them so.

One could appeal to Jesus words in Matthew 19:4-5 that Jesus Himself believed that the when and how of the immediate and direct (hence non-evolutionary) creation of Adam and Eve was important. (We might also want to ask here if Jesus’ human nature was descended and evolved from a common ancestor.)

“If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific information to the Israelites, then we should not look there for scientific information about the age of the earth or the formation of species. Instead, we can look at what God has revealed in nature itself to understand the when and how.”

The problem here is the assumption that general revelation can’t be read and interpreted properly apart from presupposing special revelation. It is true that God has given us two books wherein we can read His revelation but it is not true that we can read the book of nature correctly if we presuppose a theology other than Christianity.

Apart from presupposing what is taught in Scripture — that the Universe has order because of God’s providence — there is no consistent reason for the Scientist to believe that the Sun will rise regularly. The irrationality for believing that the sun will rise regularly is something David Hume pointed out. A science that begins without special revelation is a science that is autonomous and so can come up with everything from punctuated equilibrium to man being descended from animals.

It should be emphasized that evolution is only a theory. Embracing evolution is a blind leap of faith. There is no science that does or can prove it. Any evidence that is brought forth to support it is evidence that only proves evolution because it presupposes the truth of evolution. That is hardly a scientific approach. Therefore to appeal to nature as interpreted by science, as the way to determine the formation of species is a thin reed on which to rely.

The most significant problem I see with the Haarsma’s article is that it doesn’t take into account how theology informs science. Those who start with the theology of Hinduism, or Islam, or Communism (let us never forget Lysenkoism) or Humanism, or Christianity are going to develop significantly different sciences. Because that is so science can not be used to prove or disprove any metaphysical or theological construct since science depends upon those constructs for its existence.

Another significant problem I see with the Haarsma’s position is its implied Deism. It seems that for evolutionary creationists God starts the evolutionary / creation process and then kind of fades away to let the evolutionary process roll on.

I will continue to be mystified by those who desire to take a paradigm that was created and defended as a means of explaining this world without taking into consideration the God of the Bible and try to combine it with the God of the Bible.

The Haarsma’s article is fraught with severe difficulties. I trust people will not take their word on the issue.

Muller On “What They Didn’t Tell You That TULIP Needs To Make Sense”

I have often times written and insisted that the Doctrines of Grace (fashionably styled as TULIP) absolutely require the larger context of the Reformed faith in order to retain their meaning. This means that those who hold to TULIP while denying the larger context of the Reformed Faith either don’t really hold to TULIP or are involved in some serious contradictions. I have, on ironink especially made that argument regarding the sacraments.

Recently, I stumbled across an article that makes that same overall argument in spades. I highly recommend it. It was written by Dr. Richard Muller and can be found at,

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/

I am going to hit some highlights here for those who don’t have the time to read ten pages.

“They also — all of them (Reformed confessions) — agree on the assumption that our assurance of the salvation, wrought by grace alone through the work of Christ and God’s Spirit in us, rests not on our outward deeds or personal claims but on our apprehension of Christ in faith and on our recognition of the inward work of the Spirit in us. Because this assurance is inward and cannot easily or definitively be externalized, all of these documents also agree that the church is both visible and invisible — that it is a covenanted people of God identified not by externalized indications of the work of God in individuals, such as adult conversion experiences but by the preaching of the word of God and the right administration of the sacraments.”

In today’s evangelical church the push is commonly towards externalizing indications that a work of God in individuals has taken place. This push was seen once upon a time in raising a hand or walking an aisle or sitting at the seekers bench. When the Pentecostals came along indications became a little more bizarre. With the third wave we have external indications of God’s work that range from swinging from chandeliers to making animal sounds. What the evangelical church misses is that God has given us externalized indications of his work in the Word preached and the Sacraments distributed. When we push for these non Word and Sacrament externalized indications we are subtly moving away from the importance of the Church where the God given externalized indications take place in Word and Sacrament and are moving towards an individualized me and Jesus Christianity. After all, you don’t need to be at church to get an electric Holy Spirit charge, and even if you are at church the emphasis of church gets changed from God acting in Word and Sacrament to a anticipation of when the Holy Spirit will cause some strange and aberrant behavior. Because we are totally depraved God works in us through the ordained means of Word and Sacrament. Moving the emphasis from the means of grace that God uses to resurrect sinners, to funky behavior that can be mimicked by anybody overturns the TULIP applecart.

“Baptism, rightly understood from the human side, signifies the placement of our children into the context where the promised grace of God is surely at work. And who more than an infant, incapable of meritorious works, can indicate to us that this salvation is by grace alone? By way of contrast, the restriction of baptism to adult believers who make a “decision” and who come forward voluntarily to receive a mere ordinance stands against recognition of baptism as a sign of utter graciousness on the part of God: Baptism here is offered only to certain individuals who have passed muster before a human, albeit churchly, court — or to state the problem slightly differently, who have had a particular experience viewed as the necessary prerequisite to baptism by a particular churchly group. If grace and election relate to this post-decision baptism, they can hardly be qualified by the terms “irresistible” and “unconditional.” There is an inescapable irony in refusing baptism to children, offering it only to adults, and then telling the adults that they must become as little children in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

Muller then moves on to slice and dice the evangelical piety and nomenclature that talks about “having a personal relationship with Jesus.” Muller suggest that such talk that belies such an easy and casual intimacy can possibly detract from the “majesty of the doctrine of Christ’s Kingship.” He also suggests that this “personal relationship” language with its implied reciprocity may subtly inject in our thinking that salvation is, like any personal relationship, a co-operative effort. Muller suggests, by appealing to the Heidelberg Catechism, that a more Reformed way to speak than speaking of a “personal relationship” is by speaking that we belong in body and soul and in life and death to our faithful savior Jesus Christ.

Anyway … I recommend the whole article for your perusal. I would only slightly question Muller on two points. First, I would slightly question the way he connects the decrees of God in eternity to the way those decrees come to fruition in space and time. Muller rightly faults some people for not having a temporal order of grace. I would only add that that other people probably need to be faulted for not understanding that their temporal order of grace needs to be anchored in an a-temporal order of grace.

Second, I could wish that Muller saw the connection between a vigorous postmillennialism and the doctrines of grace. I agree with everything he says about amillennialism (and I think he uses “amillennialism” to include postmillennial notions) but I believe that a denial of a victorious eschatology flies in the face of the perseverance of the saints. Granted, amillennialism perseveres the saints but they persevere in the context of defeat. Postmillennialism does more justice to the triumph of Christ over all of his enemies in my estimation.

Anyway … great article by Dr. Muller. Give it a read and tell me what you think.

Darwin & Lincoln

In one of those strange Providences Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the same day in the same year. Perhaps it is fitting that they both celebrate their 200th birthday this year.

Darwin developed a system of thought that did away with God, while Lincoln developed the modern centralized state to fill the vacuum of the missing God. Darwin, having made God unnecessary, Lincoln took it upon himself to make the centralized state necessary. Perhaps, with a touch of celestial irony, Darwin claimed that man came from the ape and Lincoln was often referred to by his political enemies as “the great ape.”

Darwin, used science to deny God while Lincoln used politics to usurp God. Each, in their own way, and in their own fields, launched concentrated assaults on the foundations of the prevailing social order of Christendom. In the days since Lincoln and Darwin the state as God has supported the “scientific” worldview of Darwin, while the followers of Darwin have feverishly worked to support the putative notion of a non-religious state. The relationship between the intellectual descendants of Lincoln and Darwin have worked hand and glove to keep Christianity and Christians ghettoized.

If Reformation is to come again to the West both Lincoln’s centralized state and Darwin’s materialism will have to go. If that ever happens we can finally bury both of them.

Religion & Spheres

“Church leaders have been unable to confront the humanistic world order effectively. First, as we have seen, their concepts of sovereignty and law are defective. They concede these to the state and thereby cease to be Christian. Like the mystery religions of the Roman Empire, their role is limited to providing salvation in the form of inner peace and an abstraction from the world.

Second, churchmen see religion as one sphere among many, and they seek cooperation among the spheres, i.e., such as the harmony of religion and science. Their position involves a fundamental error. It is true that the church is one sphere among many, i.e., spheres such as the family, vocations, civil government, etc. To seek to make the church more than a particular sphere is imperialism, such as the state sphere now exercises. Religion, however, is more than church. It is the ground of all spheres. Church, state, family, the vocations, the arts and sciences, and all things else must be governed by religion, by Biblical faith, and every sphere has equally the duty of faithfulness to the triune God.

R. J. Rushdoony
Sovereignty — pp. 182

Paragraph #1

1.) Many, if not most contemporary expressions of Christianity, are, in the words of Dr. Gary North, nothing but escape religions. Christianity thus serves as a tame pet for the various statist power religions. There seems to be a unwritten truce between the state and much that passes for the Christian faith where the state continues to agree to give churches their tax exempt status in exchange for the church making sure that the natives don’t ever connect their faith to what happens in the public square where the state has its way. Christianity, as the ultimate escape religion, thus, holds hands with the humanism which is the ultimate power religion. It is a very commodious relationship.

Paragraph #2

1.) Churchmen continue to fail to accept that religion (theology / worldview) informs every area of life. Another way of saying this is that different spheres owe their definition and meaning to the religion (theology / worldview) that launches any particular sphere (or discipline) in question.

2.) This means the attempt to harmonize the Christian religion (as only one sphere) with another sphere is that there is no attempt to inquire what religion (besides the Christian religion) is the religion that is responsible for launching the sphere that the Christian religion is trying to harmonize with. Concretely speaking this means that it is grave error for the Christian religion to try and harmonize with a science (as one example) that has been launched by a competing religion. The Christian religion can only harmonize with a science that has been launched by the Christian religion.

3.) There is no common realm where epistemologically self conscious men with different religious commitments can meet and pursue what are thought to be various non-religious spheres or disciplines apart from the impact and consideration of their respective religious faiths. There is no cloak room in reality where our respective impacting religions can be hung up so that another room in reality may be entered where we may consider spheres or disciplines “un-religiously.” The fact that men with different religious commitments do meet and pursue what are thought to be various non religious spheres and disciplines is testimony that most men are not epistemologically self conscious.

Elections Have Consequences

1.) Goodbye 1st Amendment

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountability_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

2.) Goodbye 2nd Amendment

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4405

Here’s what Mr. Clinton had to say:

“[W]e will not go forward anymore, I don’t think, with the kind of politics of division and destruction that drug us down for too long. That’s essentially what is different, and what creates this great moment of opportunity . . . . to have conversations with people, instead of screaming matches, over things like what former Mayor [now Brady Campaign president Paul] Helmke works on so much—over what is the best way to keep the American people safe. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment, and nobody wants to keep you out of the deer woods, but wouldn’t it be nice if your children didn’t have to worry about being mowed down by an assault weapon when they turn the corner?”

…Clinton continued, this time speaking more broadly than in reference to gun control alone. “[W]e’re now in a position to begin again,” he said. “It’s not a leftward movement. It’s a forward, communitarian movement.” Communitarianism is a movement that considers individualism an impediment to society uniformly adopting values the movement considers appropriate, including authoritarian gun control. For example, the Communitarian Network platform states “there is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies.”

3.) Goodbye Jurisdictional Sphere of the Family

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_huston/2009/02/07/boxer-urges-quick-handover-of-us-power-to-un/

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which opponents say could destroy American sovereignty by imposing international rulings on American law, could reach the Senate within 60 days. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says she wants a 60-day timeframe for the State Department to complete its review so the Senate can move toward ratification of the UNCRC. During the Senate Confirmation hearing between Boxer and UN Ambassador-designate Susan Rice held on January 15, 2009, Boxer told Rice the UNCRC would protect “the most vulnerable people of society.”

Opponents vehemently disagree. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since virtually all laws in the U.S. regarding children are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law. Moreover, it would grant the government authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those convicted of abuse or neglect.