The theory of evolution cannot be consistently held and the statements of the Bible concerning sin and its consequences be accepted at the same time.
And so the evolutionist will come, sooner or later, to refuse any meaning to Scripture statements concerning sin, as did Dr. W. N. Clarke, when he said:
We have no historical narrative of the beginning of sin, and theology receives from the Scriptures no record of that beginning.
That is, the perfectly plain and easily understood statements of Scripture concerning the beginning of sin are altogether unhistorical and utterly unworthy of credence to the man who looks at the Bible from the "scientific" or "historical" standpoint, which is the evolutionist"s method of handling the Word of G.o.d. To accept evolution, therefore, is to discredit the Bible.
4. The logic of evolution destroys the doctrines of the =Deity= and the =virgin birth= of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible makes Christ the Seed of the woman, not of the man, as all other human beings are; it makes His conception to have been that of the Holy Spirit; it declares His virgin birth in language that cannot be misunderstood; it makes Him the Son of G.o.d, not the son of Joseph.
It also makes Him G.o.d tabernacling in the flesh; it makes Him the Second Person of the Triune =G.o.d=; it declares in so many words that He =is= G.o.d.
But evolution cannot accept such a doctrine, and so the evolutionist juggles the Scripture statements of His Deity and denies His virgin birth, making Him a Jewish b.a.s.t.a.r.d, born out of wedlock, and stained forever with the shame of His mother"s immorality.
Dr. A. C. McGiffert says of Christ, that He is
no more divine than we are, or than nature is.
A magazine article on "The Cosmic Coming of the Christ" says:
First the little sc.u.m on the warm, stagnant water, then the little colonies of cells, the organisms, the green moss and lichen, the beauty of vegetation, the movement of sh.e.l.l fish, sponges, jelly fish, worms, crabs, trilobites, centipedes, insects, fish, frogs, lizards, dinosaurs, reptile birds, birds, kangaroos, mastodons, deer, apes, primitive man, cave man, man of the stone age, of earliest history, Abraham"s migration, the Exodus, the development of the Jewish religious life and the climax in that purest of maidens, Mary of Nazareth. The hour had come for the dawn of a new day, and the light of that new day was the birth of Jesus. The eternal purpose of the ages was now to be made clear, and the long, long aeons of creation explained.
It is no wonder that after quoting these words the "Sunday School Times"
exclaims:
In other words, without moss we could not have had Mary; without an ape we could not have had Abraham; and--shocking blasphemy--without a centipede we could not have had Christ!
Praise G.o.d, we may turn from this to the words of G.o.d; "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will bring to naught."
And so here once more the consistent evolutionist is compelled to reject the Bible by denying the doctrines of the Deity and the virgin birth of Christ.
5. The logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of =atonement by subst.i.tution=.
The Bible says:
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission [of sin].
Him who knew no sin He hath made to be sin for us.
The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.
We "were redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ."
We are "justified by His blood."
The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.
These and many other statements make Christ"s death one of atonement by subst.i.tution for our sins.
But evolution cannot tolerate such a doctrine. To the evolutionist this is a "doctrine of the shambles," a "slaughter house religion," a "gospel of gore." Christ"s death is rather a revelation of the evolutionist"s conception of divine love, and an example of sacrificial service set before struggling man to help him climb. Let those who believe in the evolutionist"s "historical" method of interpreting Scripture speak for themselves.
Dr. Gerald Birney Smith, of the University of Chicago, says:
To insist dogmatically, as an _a priori_ principle, that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,"
is both foolish and futile in an age that has abandoned the conception of b.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice and which is loudly demanding the abolition of capital punishment.
Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch said:
What the death of Jesus now does for us, the death of the prophets did for him.
Dr. H. C. Vedder says:
Jesus never taught and never authorized anybody to teach in his name that he suffered in our stead and bore the penalty of our sins;
and also:
The "one crowning absurdity of theology" is "that the penalty of an evil deed can be vicariously borne by another while he goes scot free,"
which he describes in another place as
taking an immunity bath in the "fountain filled with blood."
And Dr. J. H. Coffin, of Earlham College, Earlham, Indiana, says:
The sacrificial life of Jesus is the essential factor in His atonement. His principles and example are the way of the individual and society to G.o.d.
Such statements make it perfectly evident that those who accept evolution utterly reject G.o.d"s provision for salvation through the shed blood of Christ as an atonement by subst.i.tution for our sins.
6. The logic of evolution destroys the doctrine of =regeneration=.
The Bible describes man as dead to G.o.d and running away from Him; as having a nature so full of corruption that "From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores"; and as having a character in the grip of such enmity against G.o.d that by nature he "loves darkness rather than light."
This indicates that man is =past improvement= in his natural state, for no improvement is possible in the dead.
The Bible therefore speaks, not of the improvement, but of the burial, of the old life, and of resurrection, by the power of a new nature, to newness of life.
Hear what it says:
We were buried with Christ by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
There is a large section of the Church that understand this pa.s.sage to refer to immersion in water in confession of faith in Christ. Not that they believe that immersion has anything to do with saving us, for they do not, but that it is the divinely appointed symbol or picture of the salvation that has already become a reality in the life.
To an immersionist, therefore, when a believer is buried with Christ in symbol in his baptism, and raised again in symbol of resurrection, he confesses, among other things, that by his first birth he is so completely dead that there is nothing left to do with him but to bury him, and his willingness to be buried in the grave of Christ has been met by G.o.d with the gift of the risen and incorruptible life which is in His Son, and by which he is now enabled to walk in newness of life.
And so an immersionist cannot be a consistent evolutionist. For when an evolutionist is immersed, he is either perpetrating a meaningless travesty on immersion, or else he is denying the whole doctrine of evolution. For immersion certainly does not picture a step in the progress of the living, but rather the burial of the totally dead. Immersing churches that have gone over to the evolutionary position should therefore be consistent and nail up their baptistries.
But another large portion of the Church believe that the above pa.s.sage does not refer to immersion in water, but rather to the statement: