The time has come for the evangelical Christian church in general, and the Christian Reformed Church in particular. to more carefully define and profess the Biblical doctrines of the creation of man and the Fall. We must draw a line in affirming and defending the doctrine that Adam and Eve were real, historical persons miraculously created by Almighty God. We must affirm and defend the doctrine that the Genesis record of the Fall is an account of actual historical events.

Current Need to Confess God’s Creation

Some will no doubt say, “Why should we press these divisive issues? Suppose a person understands the Genesis account figuratively rather than literally—that doesn’t mean that he’s not saved.” And this is true. But to acknowledge that such a person can still be a Christian is not to say that such a misunderstanding of Scripture is without serious and far–reaching consequences; nor is it to say that a faithful church can remain indifferent to the matter. Indeed. the current uncritical embracing of evolutionary theory and corresponding mythologization of Genesis represent a serious challenge to the Christian faith.

First of all. there is the question of hermeneutics. If we are to allow for an historical—critical approach to Genesis 1–11. on what basis are we going to deny its application to the accounts of the virgin birth or the resurrection? As Harold Lindsell asserts in The Battle f or the Bible: “, . . once the historical-critical methodology is accepted. it rakes one farther down the road. far beyond inerrancy in its simple stage. It has in it all of the seeds that lead toward apostacy. This point cannot be emphasized too strongly . . .

Secondly, apart from the hermeneutical implications. the theological implications of the mythologization of Genesis are by no means inconsiderable. If man has evolved from the apes, then how is he essentially different from the animals? If the creation of man was mediated through the process of natural selection. then is not man the result of death rather than death the result of man’s sin? And is not then the very reality and nature of sin called into question? If man is presently in his natural state and there was never an historical Fall. then may not Question 6 of the Heidelberg Catechism (“Did God, then, create man so wicked and perverse?”) be answered “Yes!”?

“But,” some will object, “Our present forms of unity state the Biblical doctrines of the creation and fall of man; we don’t need another creed.” I have sympathy with this argument, but I think the strength of the present challenge requires an additional creed written specifically to meet it. This sort of situation has happened before. Although the Arian heresy was addressed by the Nicene Creed in A. D. 325, it nevertheless was necessary for the church to define the doctrine of the Trinity even more sharply against this same heresy some three centuries later when (it is believed) the Athanasian Creed was written. Likewise, the doctrines of TULIP may all be found in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, yet the Synod of Dort felt compelled to set forth these doctrines more completely in response to the errors of Arminianism. And it must be remembered that this “linedrawing” was done in the context of controversy and division in the church. Our present creeds do not devote much attention to the doctrines of man’s origin and fall simply because these doctrines were not at issue in the past.

The time has come, however, in which these doctrines are being seriously challenged. That this is also the case in the Christian Reformed Church is not hard to see despite the deceptive cloaks of semantics used by some of the challengers.

Present Compromises

For instance, the proposed “contemporary Testimony” (to be presented to Synod in 1986 for final approval), though written to meet the challenges and dangers presented to the church by modern secular society, is woefully inadequate in its confession of the church’s faith regarding man’s origins. Its broad, general statements and careful vagueness blur rather than more sharply define the church’s doctrine in this area. In commenting on its “Testimony,” the committee writes: “The confession that this world belongs to God is opposed by the world view of evolutionism. Whereas the church has agreed with Christian scholars and scientists that development takes place within the created order, evolutionism reaches the independence and autonomy of natural forces (Acts of Synod 1983, p. 423).” Note that this states that the church agrees with evolution, it’s just evolutionism which we are at odds with. The committee attempts to allay our fears by stating “Human beings are not mere products of a naturalistic evolutionary process . . . .” But why the words mere and naturalistic? Are they implying that we may be products of a theistic evolutionary process, or that perhaps we are products of a naturalistic evolutionary process but that’s not all we are? The committee comments further that Christians “do not need to be afraid to revise previous formulations or understandings of God’s dealings with this world or of the manner in which God unlocks the wealth of his created order . . . .” My translation: we don’t have to be afraid to throw the traditional exegesis of Genesis out the window or to embrace evolutionary theory.

Many more examples may be cited. A prominent Calvin College history professor dismisses the creationists’ hermeneutical scruples as being largely the result of cultural and historical influences (cf. The Banner, Jan. 14, 1985, p. 27). Two professors of geology at Calvin favor the view that man’s physical nature has evolved from the apes (cf. The Banner, Nov. 12, 1984, pp. 10–12; The Outlook , Dec. 1985, p. 17). Many have grave doubts also as to what sort of doctrine concerning the origin of man and the Fall is presently being taught in Calvin Seminary (cg. Acts of Synod 1984, Overture 31, pp . 445–450).

Confess Neither Less Nor More Than God Revealed

Need I go on? The time to speak, I say, has come. Yet there is one more point I want to stress, and that is that we must carefully define and profess these doctrines. As the Canons of Dort state: “Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ . . . to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures . . . .” Just as we must make our stand against those who would take away from Scripture, so we must be careful that nothing be added to it. In articulating the Biblical doctrine of creation we must recognize that there are certain questions which the Scriptures leave unanswered. This calls for careful exegetical work by faithful Biblical scholars. We will not discover which questions the Bible answers and which it does not by turning first to science and then distorting Scripture to fit currently popular theories. Rather, the doctrine of creation is an article of faith for Christians (Heb. 11:3) grounded in a special revelation so sure that, as our Lord says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Yet it is my belief that an obedient approach to Scripture will reveal there is an area for responsible Christian discussion within specific Biblical limits.

But what are these limits? Many in leadership positions in the church are loath to say. Frequently. Christian scientists who look to theologians for help in interpreting the Bible find that the theologians are deferring to the scientists. It has become not uncommon to find instances of Christian scientists allowing less room for theories of theistic evolution than their theologian counterparts. Though I think he walks the very edge of this limit, I am thankful that Calvin geology professor Davis Young is bold to recognize that “the doctrine of the evolution of man is unscriptural and should be opposed (Christianity and the Age of the Earth, p. 66).” On this question of limits. I think Francis Schaeffer is especially helpful:

I will now mention two limits that seem to me to be absolute. The first is that the word bara insists that at the original creation, at the creation of conscious life, and at the creation of man there was specific discontinuity with what preceded. One other limitation is that Adam was historic and was the first man, and that Eve was made from Adam. (The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, V. 2, p. 136).

It is extremely expedient for the church to emphasize even such basic limits as these in this age of wandering from the Word. Indeed, I believe that if the Christian Reformed Church is to stay within the limits of Scripture in its profession of the doctrine of creation, at the very least it must be served by faithful leaders obedient to the Word who diligently work to establish specifically what the limits are.

Mr. Kloosterman, a graduate of Calvin College, is an analytical chemist and a church schoolteacher and consistory member living at 3610 Konkle, Kalamazoo, Ml 49001.