The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:
3. God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).
4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans. They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).
It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas. There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution. And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct. One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history. However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.
First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life. There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible. I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates. Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4. According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image. It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei. If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue. If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play? At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation? I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve). But I think that is really stretching credulity.
A final word here on the importance of point 4. You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors. I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically. Others try to read it as a science text book. I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest. For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing. Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8). But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written. The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history. There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details. One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident. Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).
Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin. The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God. They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them. Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature. We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5). We are not sinners because we sin. Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature. Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21). The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior. We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).
So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin? If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from? I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it. One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species. And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.
So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation. This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake. Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints. And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude 3).
In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?” But now for something completely different . . . .
[*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]
