ADAM AND EVOLUTION (May, 1986)

Dear Readers:

In a recent issue of The Outlook (May 1986, page 12) the following question was asked: What are we to do with the fossils that are found in God’s world? In a magazine whose front cover proclaims that it is “Devoted to the exposition and defense of the Reformed faith” we might have expected the answer to be a quotation from Scripture, perhaps Psalm 24:1 “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it.” Or perhaps a quotation from John Calvin, such as “We know God, who is Himself invisible, only through His works.” (Commentaries on Genesis, King translation, 1948, Eerdman’s, page 59). But the answer suggested in The Outlook was “Why, nothing, of course.”

Ought we really to do nothing with the products of God’s handiwork which we observe in His world? The fossils, the light from distant stars, and the radioactive isotopes in the rocks are surely as much a part of God’s world as are the lily, the sparrow, and we ourselves. Why should we be afraid to see what God’s world is like? Why should we be afraid to investigate the history of God’s world? If we fail to give serious consideration to the products of God’s handiwork in the world when we are thinking about God, then what are we to do with Article ll of the Belgic Confession of Faith?

Thank you.

Sincerely yours, Clarence Menninga Calvin College

RESPONSE:

The Editor has kindly referred Professor Menninga’s letter to me for comment.

As was predictable, the Professor hopes to avoid the thrust of my articles by trying to shift the focus of discussion away from his view of special revelation (in regard to the issues I raised) and onto my view of general revelation.

Thankfu l, however, that Dr. Menninga has generously stepped forward, let’s just go along with his rather crude device by answering his questions to see if he will then answer mine.

First, as to God’s general revelation , fossils included: the heavens declare God’s glory and the firmament displays His handiwork (Ps. 19). The things that are made bear witness to God’s everlasting power and divinity (Rom. 1). Yes, we may learn this from Psalm 24, and elsewhere too; and, to be sure, this we confess in Belgic Article II. No problem. We can be reminded of it also, of course, by Calvin. But I trust that in reading Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis, the Professor also learned to take Genesis as God’s inspired Word, and thus, as Calvin says, has been “taught by the ministry of Moses, not to wander in foolish and trifling speculations” (p. 63). Indeed, on the very page Professor Menninga quotes, Calvin reminds him, and us, that it is the Holy Spirit who “has spoken by his [Moses] mouth” (p . 59)! All this simply accents an underlying theme of my articles, and I am glad to have it stressed.

“Why should we be afraid,” Dr. Menninga then twice wonders, “to see what God’s world is like?”

Afraid, Professor? Are “we” afraid?

It is, I think, the impression of many readers of this magazine that you (and others of your colleagues) are in fact “afraid” to tell the Church in plain speech just how you relate what you think you hear the fossils saying to what God plainly says in Genesis. This is precisely the thrust of the two articles your letter so conspicuously tries to evade. Are we mistaken?

However, now that you have joined the conversation, let me briefly confront you with some of the issues again and we can go on from here.

Why not lay all the fossils you like on your table, bathe them in “the light from distant stars,” season with isotopes to your taste, and then will you tell us, who like Calvin listen to Genesis, just what we are missing:

What do you hear your fossils saying?

As I pointed out in paragraph 5 of my first article, whatever you say will have to come in man’s words, and these lack one characteristic of God’s Word, namely infallibility. In fact, when do any two evolutionary theorists agree for long, either with each other or with themselves as concerns this biggest myth of the twentieth century?

And you will forgive some for wondering: when a conflict arises between the going “word” of the fossils and the Word of God, which do you and those who think like you, choose?

In cases like these, for example:

1. God says through Moses, and confirms through St. Paul, that Adam was made a distinct and first man out of the dust of the earth. What do you hear your fossils saying? 2. God says that Adam was not only made the first man, but that he was deliberately designed to be the unique “type” of the Christ, thus called the Second Adam. What do you hear your fossils saying?

3.God Says that Eve, the first woman, was uniquely made out of one of the ribs of this first man Adam. What do you hear the fossils saying?

4. God says that this first woman was beguiled by a serpent into sin, and that this first sin admitted death into history. What do you hear your fossils saying?

One might, and should , ask a good deal more, Dr. Menninga, and I suppose you could reply in answer to each question that the fossils say nothing.

Quite so, but why then object to my advising those who derive their view of human affairs through the lenses of the Bible not to bother with transient fossilized “trifling speculations” (as Calvin puts it)? That advice seems to surprise you; perhaps you are unaware that it echoes a suggestion made by distinguished Catholic scholar Etienne Gilson some decades ago?

Let the reader, by the way , who wants an entertaining account of some of the games which evolutionary theorists play with their fossils dip into Cambridge University Professor Michael Pitman’s Adam And Evolution, distributed through Baker Book House. Not, indeed, Calvinist, but good for a chuckle along the way. Perhaps a good guffaw is the best way to clear the air of the grim seriousness with which some “Christian scholars” cling to evolutionary hypotheses which more subtle secular minds are now deserting.

However that may be, Professor Menninga, I am sure the Editor will provide you space for clear and concise reply to my, I think, clear and concise questions.

Or are you (and colleagues, too) really “afraid” to tell us?

Lester DeKoster

SYNOD AGENDA (May, pp. 8, 9)

Dear Rev. DeJong

You are certainly correct when you say that Classis Lake Erie has continued to license Clay Libolt. Your readers ought to know that Classis did that only after a special examination to deal with the issues raised by synod.

You are incorrect when you refer to Overture 8 (Synod 1982) as simply a defense of Mr. Libolt. Overture 8 is a defense of any candidate who, after spending 7 or 8 years preparing for the Gospel ministry, is denied candidacy by synod. Our classis believes there is a much more pastoral and just way of dealing with such cases and used the example of Mr. Libolt to illustrate that. Now that the issue of his candidacy has been resolved, this very good overture could probably receive an objective hearing.

Sincerely, George Vander Weit Warrenville Heights, Ohio

RESPONSE:

Shouldn’t we decide whether one may be a candidate for the ministry by examining his orthodoxy rather than by merely counting the years he has studied?

Editor