Skip to main content

Evolution and the Inerrancy of Scripture


For Question Evolution Day, the link between evolution and the inerrancy of Scripture is explored. People who know their Bible and have a good understanding of doctrine know that evolution and creation are irreconcilable. Theistic evolution, the "Gap Theory", "Progressive Creation" and other compromises require eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures). People who do this elevate man's "wisdom" above that of God's revelation. That is ridiculous (1 Cor. 1.20, Psalm 14.1-3). Why would anyone want to add philosophies and interpretations of evidence that are based on atheism? And yet, the inerrancy of Scripture is of paramount importance to a proper understanding of the Bible.

What is your ultimate standard? Is it God's Word, or the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies?
For the purposes of this article, only inerrancy of Scripture of the five fundamentals will be discussed.  The attacks on inerrancy, beginning in Genesis 1, brought doubt to the Creation account, which led to doubt on Biblical inspiration, doctrine and authority of not only Scripture but of God Himself.
After the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, many theologians came to accepting evolution as truth.  This thinking came into once very conservative seminaries as evolutionist thinking and more liberal seminary professors inched their way into these halls of theological training.
After holding several heresy trials involving liberal seminary professors, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1910 approved what are known as the Five Fundamentals.[1]  The document stated “that the following doctrines were essential and necessary to the Presbyterian system.”[2]  The five approved were:
  • The inerrancy of Scripture
  • The virgin birth of Christ
  • The substitutionary atonement of Christ by His death on the cross
  • The bodily resurrection of Christ
  • The authenticity of miracles[3]
Needless to say, a war broke out between the fundamentalists and the liberals. This led to the famous sermon by Harry Emerson Fosdick in 1922 titled “Shall The Fundamentalists Win?”[4]  Then, after the Scopes Trial of 1925, where Clarence Darrow made William Jennings Bryan, one of the stars of fundamentalism in his day, look like a complete idiot, the fundamentalist were defeated, but not down completely.
After the fundamentalist resurgence in the late 1970s, liberals were driven out of denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention.  One of the casualties was one Dr. C. Welton Gaddy.  Gaddy.   Gaddy’s reaction, according to an article in the Charleston City Paper (no year is given as to when the article was written, only the date of April 14)  “What happened that day in 1981 was part of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC as they led the nation’s largest Protestant denomination to secede from mainstream American Christianity. Through the 1970s and ’80s, fundamentalists conducted an almost Stalinesque purge of moderates from positions of authority in the convention, its churches and seminaries.”[5]   Obviously, Gaddy was not a happy camper.
I urge you to read the rest of this informative and extremely interesting article in its context, "How Evolution Undermines Inerrancy".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

A Cowboy Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get going on this, I'd better clarify something, even though many of my regular readers (and podcast interview listeners) know: my "cowboy" moniker is not earned. It's a nickname I picked up a few years ago, and it shows my cowboy attitude. I don't know nothin' 'bout no hayburners; tell me to saddle up a horse and ride, I'd probably get kicked, fall off, and land in poo. So, I need a guide. Yes, I lived in the West — the west side of Michigan. Anyway, being a cowboy at heart has helped me get things done. My father had a cowboy attitude as well, which is something I learned from testimonials at his funeral. Anyway, adding some Western-style lingo in posts and articles adds color and personality, I reckon, even though I usually have a conversational style for the most part. Assembled from components at Clker Clip Art A while back, I was looking for cowboy Bibles and came across the " Simplified Cowboy Versio

Poor Excuses for Rejecting Creation

So often with various kinds of conversion experiences where people get all worked up about something — then the excitement cools. Books are untouched on the shelves, no interest in lectures (videos or otherwise), but they have a smattering of knowledge. Image source before modification: Pixabay /  Spencer Wing This is especially sad when someone believes in Jesus Christ but then falls away (Matt. 13:18-23). In a similar way, someone can become excited about biblical creation science but get discouraged and distracted by philosophies, intimidated by militant atheists, harassed by college professors, teased by friends, and so on. There are some who claim to be "former creationists" that have saddled up to ride with the Old Earth brand (or even with professing atheists), but when they have discussions with knowledgeable creationists, it is discovered that they only had superficial knowledge of biblical creation science. Worse, their theology (which is intertwined with it) is als