Dr. Collins has replied to my review of his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?:
I should not go into great detail here, but I would simply like to observe that
I consider the reviewer, whom I do not know, to have been mistaken in her
presentation of my arguments, and in her interpretation of the PCA Study
Committee report. Also, it seems pretty clear that the comments on the [Warfield] List (and
on the blog before it) come mostly from people who have not read either my book
or the article that is a summary of it.
You can read the full reply here.
I will be writing Dr. Collins today to try to determine what I’ve misunderstood about his writings and about the PCA Creation Study Committe’s Report.
Pastor Wes has found some additional discussions of Dr. Collins’ book at The Gospel Coalition. Kevin DeYoung has a review of the book. His overall review is positive, but he says he was not as satisfied as he would like:
As much as I appreciated this book—its scholarship, its honesty, its pastoral touch–I have one caution. I was surprised to see Collins quickly dismiss (in one paragraph) the traditional view that Adam and Eve were the first members of the genus Homo (122). Although he believes Adam and Eve were historical persons and the result of “special creation,” he seems very open to the idea (following Stott and Kidner) that Adam and Eve were created from existing hominids and somewhat open to some form of polygenesis (i.e., the original population size of the earth included more than just Adam and Eve). In the end, Collins leaves a number of important questions unanswered, which made an otherwise good book less satisfying.
The Gospel Coalition also has an interview with Dr. Collins about the book. Here is a short excerpt from that interview:
Through most of church history, Christians have quite firmly believed that all humankind descends from the original couple, whom the Bible writers call Adam and Eve. They have also believed that this couple were created morally innocent, and that their disobedience is at the root of everyone else’s sin and dysfunction. You can find this in Christian writers from the earliest stages of church history, writers from both the Eastern and Western branches of the church. Now these writers do not all agree on just how that initial sin affects all the rest of us, and how it is passed down. But on the basic historical event they are at one. You will find the same belief in Jewish writers as well.
You can read the whole interview here.
I am glad that Dr. Collins has expressed his viewpoint on this issue, and I hope that it will serve to bring more careful discussion and consideration to this very important issue. If you’d like to order his book, you can do so here or here.
Tags: Historical Adam, John Collins
This is good. Over the next few days, I intend to follow all the links and read all the material.
Thank you, Dr. Collins, for thinking that internet discussions are worthy of consideration, and for taking the time to respond.
Everyone should read Dr. Collins’ article “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters.”
For convenience, here is the link that Dr. Collins provided in his reply at The Warfield list: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2010/PSCF9-10Collins.pdf
I’m very pleased to now have access to this article, which Dr. Collins states is a summary of the book. Thus, I’m assuming that we now have easy access to the substance of the book in summary form, from the author himself. This should put us all on the “same page,” as it were.
Brothers and sisters, I urge you to read Dr. Collins’ article “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters.” (The pdf retains the page numbers, 147-165, of the journal in which it originally appeared.) I have read the entire article carefully, and I will read it again.
Study especially the sections at the end, pp. 158-162, Some Scientific “Scenarios”: Preliminary Questions, Criteria for Good Scenarios, A Sampling of Scenarios Examined; and Conclusions. Keep these questions in mind: What does Dr. Collins definitely affirm about Genesis 2 and 3? What is he willing to allow?
I believe that the content of this article is a very serious matter. As has already been noted, Dr. Collins makes a number of excellent points, for which we should be thankful. Be careful to read them, though, in the light of the concluding sections.
Read again the paragraph from Kevin DeYoung’s review of the book above. Ask yourself, what is the value of the book’s “honesty, scholarship, and pastoral touch” given the “one caution” that he describes? (You may find multiple cautions in the article.) Is it not possible to take away entirely with the left hand what one gives with the right?
Frank~ I have read both the article and the book. As far as I can tell, the article is a good summary of the book.
@ Frank. I’ve read it too. I don’t know that I want to read it again, but while I hope to address some major problems (either here or my own blog as I do have a number of section highlighted and notes in the margins), I can say with that I don’t think Rachel was mistaken in her presentation of Dr. Collins’ arguments in the slightest. Frankly, I think her review was spot on. Something not in her review, Collins’ biggest error it seems to me, besides undermining the truth of Scripture in general, is that he clearly believes science is a cognitive enterprise. It’s not.
I have also read the article by Jack Collins, and I have tremendous problems with it. Rachel is very correct in her analysis, and Dr. Collins’ reply painfully reminds me of the same response that many of us have gotten over the years from the Federal Vision men – “Oh, you misunderstand me.”
No, we have not misunderstood the Federal Vision men, and we have not misunderstood some of the newest ploys to advocate theistic evolution.
I will respond more fully tomorrow, after preaching is over for the day.
This issue is a very serious one, and one that demands are fullest attention. Much is at stake, and we must engage in silencing those who are upsetting whole households.
Elders: it is time to put your spiritual battle gear on again and wage holy warfare in defense of God’s precious, inerrant, Word.
Waffles. With syrup. Flavor makes people more willing to eat them.
Haven’t commented, tho very interested, until Wayne’s posting of Collins’ response demanded my posting something. Collins’ response provides syrup, saying, “I really believe in actual Adam and Eve”, “I didn’t say what you thought I said.”
Wonder how he would do presenting his view to a catechism class working thru any of the children’s catechism or the WSC or WLC? “Who were our first parents” has long had a rather unambiguous answer. Not at all a matter of, say, Aristotle and Ptolemy vs Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo.
At some place gotta draw a line. Oppose waffling. Even tho one can point to giants, eg, Warfield and Murray, who waffled in this very arena of warfare over the details of creationism, even tho this issue lot more complex than uninitiated first think.
I’ve read the Collins’ stuff posted, including links. Haven’t read the current book, but did read Collins’ “Gen 1-4″. Several times.
Rachel did her homework. Her review (much more) fairly(than I could do) represents what Collins said. If he doesn’t think he said what he said, despite her quotes, Collins will have to provide some pretty solid *retractions*. Clarifications won’t work. Don’t mean by this that I doubt Collins a solid, godly Christian, a giant in understanding vs pipsqueek me. But, as Pastor Otis just said, I’ve heard this before from guys I admire, who have made major contributions to the church’s understanding, but whose confusion in some area confounded using all those contributions.
Further, and I grant this is just echoing rather than providing careful interaction: I join those who wonder not when but whether the PCA will draw a line.
To get the ball rolling Dr. Collins writes:
I’d like to begin by asking why isn’t supposed that Genesis is “the proper literary backcloth against which” the Mesopotamian stories were written? Further, he says “No one knows what materials the author of Genesis used in composing this story” (notice he doesn’t call it history). Instead he claims Moses must have “had access to some versions of the Mesopotamian stories….” Really? What about God’s direct and special revelation?
I also have problems with Collins chosen interpretive framework:
Did Moses really just think what he was writing about were actual events or was he writing about actual events? Collins seems positively agnostic as will become clear as his arguments progress and as he tries to provide guidelines to allow advocates of demonstrably anti-Christian evolutionary conclusions “to stay within the bounds of sound thinking” where “sound thinking” is not to be confused with consistently biblical thinking. As Collins writes:
This is just silly. It the human population has always been more than two it is absolutely necessary to ditch the traditional view of Adam and Eve because the traditional view is that there were only two. If the human population has always been more than two than the biblical account is false and if the biblical account of Adam and Eve is false then what does that say about the rest of Scripture.?
Again I’ll ask, why is he the OT prof at Covenant? He admits he is “a minister in a conservative Presbyterian body,” so why is he surprised when conservative Presbyterians are upset by his arguments; arguments that undermine the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve in light of naturalistic evolutionary assumptions? After all, he seems to understand all to well that he stands in opposition to the traditional conservative position; a position he accurately states as follows:
Should have been “all too well.” But while I’m at it, besides asserting that “The creation of Adam and Eve may have involved refurbishing an existing hominid” (really, says who?), Collins writes:
Why does this deserve anyone’s consideration and how can this be validly inferred from any biblical text? Well, of course it can’t, but Collins seems considerably more impressed by the “paleontological record” and clearly considers it authoritative to the point where complete fantasies concerning Adam now deserve serious consideration in order to make the biblical account jibe with the evolutionary “story.” Further, if Adam were some chieftain standing at “the headwaters of the distinctly human kind” with Eve as his queen, the Biblical account of Adam and Eve’s unique creation is a complete lie.
Ironically, regarding the idea that Bible “presents us with an overarching worldview shaping story ” Collins quotes Wolters and Goheen:
Isn’t this precisely what what Collins has done by providing what he thinks are “sound” guidelines by which the Bible can be ” absorbed into a more encompassing secular story” and with the same result?
I will do my best to summarize my objections to Dr. Collin’s article. It will require several postings. First, Rachel is not mistaken in the least of her analysis, and Dr. Collin’s response is wholly inadequate and evasive. Collins says: “I consider the reviewer, whom I do not know, to have been mistaken in her presentation of my arguments, and in her interpretation of the PCA Study Committee report. Also, it seems pretty clear that the comments on the [Warfield] List (andon the blog before it) come mostly from people who have not read either my book or the article that is a summary of it (Emphasis mine).
Thanks to Frank Aderholdt, he has provided a pdf of Dr. Collins’ article. Well, I have done what Dr. Collins wanted- I have read his article and found it to be a clever presentation and justification of theistic evolution. There is no misunderstanding of Rachel Miller’s analysis. She has correctly understood Dr. Collins’ glaring errors.
I believe that we preachers and ruling elders must take up our battle gear and wage spiritual war against all those who sympathize with and tolerate any who advocate any form of theistic evolution, and make no bones about it, Dr. Collins is a theistic evolutionist. His article is self incriminating.
I have already sent a complaint to Dr. Chapell of Covenant Seminary indicating that I will not rest until I expose this errant theology that is being propagated by the seminary. I told Dr. Chapell that I will muster all the vigor I can to publicly oppose such teaching, and will seek to rally to my side as many as I can to publicly refute this teaching. Several of you are doing a very good job already of pinpointing the problems.
Much is at stake brethren. This is as serious a theological issue that has faced the evangelical church. The Federal Vision men needed to be exposed for what they really were and are, and those purporting any form of theistic evolution must be met with great opposition as well, and we must not rest until they are soundly refuted.
Frankly, Dr. Collins needs to be fired, and the visible church needs to rally behind our Westminster Standards and insist that it will not tolerate “liberalism” in any form from seminaries that purport to teach the truth.
More will follow.
I had originally thought that I would prepare a long, carefully argued, point-by-point evaluation of Dr. Collins’ article, “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters.” This site, however, is not the proper place for that, and I trust that others with more time and talent than I will do the job.
There are a few thing I’m certain of at this point: This matter is very serious, it’s not going away any time soon, and “I’ve been misunderstood” is not a proper response to our concerns.
My remarks in this post will refer only to the article, “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why It Matters.” Dr. Collins has written that this article is a summary of his most recent book. Perhaps the book will clarify things, but at present I have access only to the article. Also, I’ll not repeat the excellent points that others have made above.
Upon reflection, I believe a better title for the article would be, “Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why [Only that Bare Fact] Matters.”
I summarize the issue as I see it as follows:
(1) What Dr. Collins Affirms: Apparently (please correct me if I wrong; I want to be wrong!) the irreducible minimum that must be believed is the bare fact of two original human beings, whom the Bible names Adam and Eve, who possessed the image of God not by a natural process. These individuals sinned against God and plunged the entire race into sin.
(2) What Dr. Collins Allows: Other than that skeletal outline, some or most (perhaps all?) of Genesis 2 and 3 can be symbolism, not portraying straight history but only representing *something* that happened. What that “something” is and precisely how it happened, we cannot be sure. Preexisting hominids; an entire tribe with a King and Queen; evolutionary process leading up to the moment of “soul-infusion” (my term, not his); direct fashioning of the first man from the dust of the ground with the woman formed from the man’s side, OR NOT; direct speaking of God to the first humans or not; two trees or not; direct and specific commands, warnings and promises or not; a real serpent that literally spoke or not; actual eating of the forbidden fruit or not; God’s precise words after the fall of the promise of a coming redeemer or not — all these things are either “on the table” or open to question.
There’s at least one unintentional howler in the article. After quoting Kidner’s view that “The creation of Adam and Eve may have involved refurbishing an existing hominid” — which our Covenant Seminary Professor does not reject outright — Dr. Collins begins a sentence with, “This suggestion is moving us away from the simplicity of the biblical picture . . . ” Well, ya think?
(By the way,”refurbishing” is a term more properly applied to vintage cars and household furniture, certainly not to God’s creation of the human race.)
In spite of all this uncertainty (which is the best thing I can say about the article), some evangelical writers and reviewers are heartened that Dr. Collins at least affirms that Adam and Eve were historical people. This astonishes me. Has the bar really been set this low? Is that all we’re left with, as we acoommodate the God’s Word to ancient Near Eastern documents on the one hand, and the latest findings of ever-changing modern scientific theories, on the other?
Finally, we need to be reminded that every Teaching Elder in the PCA subscribes to the Westminster Standards as the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures. These standards require far more than a bare-bones affirmation of Adam and Eve as historical people; they bind officers in the PCA to a belief in specific historical events. Note the following: Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 4:2, 6:1, 7:2. Larger Catechism Questin 17, 20, 21, and 22. Shorter Catechism Question 12, 13, 15, and 16. (LC 20 and 21 are especially important here, and fatal to any view that questions the factual historicity of the events recorded in Genesis 2 and 3).
I cannot understand how any PCA Teaching Elder can subscribe to the Westminster Standards and believe, teach — or even suggest as possibilities — the views expressed in the article.
I do not know if Dr. Collins has any formal relationship to the Biologos foundation. Regardless, his article is in fundamental agreement with the main object of Biologos. Here is a direct quote from Biologos’ website from their “About Us.” They say – “We stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom faith and science are mutually hospitable, and we see no necessary conflict between the Bible and the findings of science. We have found that the methods of the natural sciences provide the MOST RELIABLE GUIDE to understanding the material world, and the CURRENT EVIDENCE FROM SCIENCE indicates that the diversity of life is BEST EXPLAINED as a result of an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. Thus we affirm that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves His purposes. (captilization is mine)
Here is where Biologos has miserably dishonored the Lord Jesus, whom they supposedly revere. They say that faith and science are mutually hospitable. Here is their compromise with the world! Here is the betrayal to Christ. And who holds the trump card? Science does. Not Scripture but science. Biologos states that the natural sciences provide the MOST RELIABLE GUIDE to understanding the material world. Really? I thought Scripture interpreted Scripture as our Confessional documents indicate?
Need I remind all of us what Westminster Confession of Faith 1:4 says? It states: The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof, and therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God.” This is as good a statement demonstrating the self attestation of God’s word as you will ever find. God’s word is true because God says it! And we don’t need science (interpreted by unbelievers) to give validation to God’s inspired Word! Wed yourself to the world, and you will soon find the world giving you “the boot out of the house.”
Dr. Collins’ article is a good example of the agenda of Biologos, and I shall prove it from Collins’ article itself.
More to come.
My long post has four or five typos. My apologies. Advice to others, which I should follow more faithfully myself: Write, edit, review, grammar- and spell-check in Word, copy and paste to the Web.
Collins writes (p.158-59) – “And what of the fossil record, which many interpret to imply that the humans had ancestors, who died? For our purposes here, all we have to insist on is that this particular couple were a fresh start, … Therefore, the best way to think about the “historical” persons of Genesis 1-11 is to set up some guidelines that preserve the historical core and allow some freedom for those who would explore.”
Freedom to explore? Oh, you mean to postulate a human view that negates the clarity of God’s revealed Word. Oh, in other words, let man stand as judge of the meaning of Scripture rather than bowing our knee to God’s inspired self-revelation of Himself. Note as well, that Collins appeals to the “fossil record.” Well, what about it Dr. Collins? I am no novice to the supposed fossil record, as I have read my fair share of unbelieving textbooks, and I have read some good refutations of this “supposed fossil record” by creationists, such as Ken Ham and Dwayne Gish, and the Morrises.
This statement is very incriminating by Collins on p. 159 when he says, “My discussion so far does, in fact, provide us with some criteria for SOUND THINKING (emphasis mine) about human origins and sin, which can help us discover some boundaries to what makes for a good scenario.” What is wrong Dr. Collins with “sound thinking” of God’s word itself, and taking it at face value? So, you mean sir, that an evolutionary theistic model is sound thinking over a creationist model? See how prejudiced Collins is with this comment. the implication is that those of us who are creationists in the truest sense are not engaged in sound thinking.
Where else is Collins’ sound thinking leading him? He states on p. 159 – “From the paleontologists, we learn that Adam and Eve, if they are indeed at the headwaters of the human race, must come before such events as the arrival of modern humans in Australia, which means before 40,000 B.C.” Where did you learn this Dr. Collins? From paleontology, not Scripture. And where did you get the 40,000 years? From Scripture? No, from paleontology. So, the most reliable guide is not Scripture that speaks of a day as morning and evening with a sequence of six of those days, but paleontology as postulated by unbelievers committed principally to the evolutionary model as a better guide supposedly. Don’t we find it amusing that when some committed evolutionist auch as the Richard Leaky found some bone in Africa, that he hailed it as the “missing link,” moving back man’s evolution to another million years or so. The things postulated as “science” are disgraceful, and many “sound thinking” creationists make open game of the absurdity of these “missing links.”
More to come
Continuing with this idea of “sound thinking,” Dr. Collins says on p. 159 – “Hence, rather than try to say whether these inferences are good or bad, I have sought ways to allow advocates of these conclusions to stay within the bounds of sound thinking. In other words, even if someone is persuaded that humans had “ancestors,” and that the human population has always been more than two, he or she does not necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve.”
Hold on here, Collins has just stated that “sound thinking” can purport a view of more human ancestors than just two. How is this not a betrayal of God’s word? Collins makes the biblical view of only two humans as a “traditional” view, but that is only a traditional view, and since we supposedly live in more “enlightened” times, having the benefit of science as interpreted by pagans, there can be an “alternate” view to the traditional one that is equally viable. After all, these alternate views are within the bounds of “sound thinking.”
All I can say is that Dr. Collins is postulating views that would make St. Thomas Aquinas proud. One of Aquinas’ downfalls was his belief that man’s reason was left intact from the ravages of the fall.
More to come.
I read the reply by Dr. Collins posted on Warfield. Did I miss the part in his reply where Dr. Collins actually enumerated the points which Rachel misunderstood or misrepresented? I guess when you are an OT professor it is sufficient just breezily to dismiss disagreements with a rhetorical pat on Rachel’s pretty little head. Dr. Collins probably knows how to say “Bless her heart” in several ANE languages.
From Dr. Collins’ reply: “…it would seem to me that it is a matter of common Christian courtesy to ask the subject of the conversation whether the reports about his beliefs are accurate. The church is, or so I thought, the family of God’s people, and most
of what we do can be handled in a familial manner, and informally.”
I think it is a matter of common courtesy that one who claims to be misrepresented or misunderstood at least take the time to explain precisely what he claims has been misunderstood and/or misrepresented. To do otherwise is to commit the same offense you are complaining about, it seems to me, but I lack a Ph.D.
Now I shall take Dr. Collins’ advice and read his article wherein I trust his position is made crystal clear.
Eileen,
This objection by Dr. Collins is no different than what the Federal Vision men did for years. They kept crying, “No one came to us privately to see if they twisted our views.” The reality was: they had written books! Articles! And spoken at conferences!
As has been noted, when one goes public with a view, he is open game. Dr. Collins published his article; it is for public viewing and possible criticism.
What we are presently doing right now is publicly addressing his public article.
Pastor Otis,
I agree that the problem is not that FV guys or Theistic Evo guys have been misunderstood. It is precisely the opposite. We *have* understood their views and the implications of those views perfectly well. They want us to accept and respect their views, and that is not at all the same as understanding their views.
Sean Gerety,
You make a good point about the universal acceptance of an historical Adam and Eve. Are you (or anyone else) aware of any theologian prior to the nineteenth century who thought that there were a group of hominids out of which God selected a pair to endow with His image, or is this a recent and novel view in the scope of church history?
It bothers me to no end that Collins will end his article by appealing again to supposed “sound thinking.” He says on p. 161 – “Two of these scenarios, from Kidner and Lewis, may be attractive to those who favor the “population size approaches” based on human DNA. As I have said, I am not assessing the science, but displaying how to keep our reasoning within the bounds of sound thinking. Nothing requires us to abandon monogenesis altogether for some form of polygenesis; rather, a modified monogenesis, which keeps Adam and Eve, can do the job. I admit that these scenarios leave us with many uncertainties, but these uncertainties in no way undermine our right to hold fast to the biblical storyline with full confidence.”
Notice again, Collins appeals to “sound thinking” of so called scientific population DNA concepts that purports the notion that polygenesis is the best way to understand human origin. Collins outright states that “a modified monogenesis” (even though it is by evolution) can do the job. And, note, how Collins wants to preserve the notion of “storyline.”
Collins would be warmly welcomed at seminaries that care less about biblical inerrancy. After all, it is the world view that counts; it is the story that counts, not necessarily some “literalistic” use of words like “ from dust you were made and dust you shall return.” After all, “special creation” does not need a special act of God creating man completely distinct from the animal world; it can incorporate it. The result? Forget the words of Scripture, look to the story! Look for the moral! Special creation can mean the process of evolution.
Dr. Collins has taken his unsuspecting students and any other persons down the slippery slope to the abyss of denying the Scripture. The Liberals want to preserve some moralistic understanding of the resurrection of Jesus without believing in an actual resurrection from the dead.
Dr. Collins: this is where you are taking your students. God help us against you. Don’t be surprised at all when some of your students deny the physical resurrection using your flawed hermeneutic. After all, they could argue that it is not the wording that really counts but the spiritual moralism that we glean.
There needs to be an outcry among many churches in the PCA to Covenant Seminary, flooding them with letters demanding the firing of Dr. Collins.
I cannot recommend more highly the book by Dr. Donald Crowe called, “Creation Without Compromise.” This book utterly strikes at the heart of those advocating theistic evolution and questioning the validity of a six literal days of creation.
Dr. Crowe does a marvelous job of tracing the philosophical underpinings of evolutionary thought, and he does a great job of defending a literal six day creation.
A debate between him and Dr. Collins would be most illuminating.
@Eileen. I don’t know of any pre-nineteenth century theologians who “who thought that there were a group of hominids out of which God selected a pair to endow with His image,” but then I tend to read orthodox pre-nineteenth century theologians.
And, to your point that Collins and those like him “want us to accept and respect their views,” this is what the the PCA Creation report was all about. It was a deeply flawed and defective report, but it followed on the heels of the OPC report on creation which similarly pretended that it could not make heads or tails of what a “day” means in Scripture. The OPC, like the PCA after it, were advancing what they called a “hermeneutic of trust” which is a pre-nineteenth century liberal “method” of interpretation. If you’re interested, former OPC elder Paul Elliot has a chapter on this anti-Christian hermeneutic that has permeated both the OPC and PCA, interestingly both starting with the doctrine of creation in his book, Christianity & Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond. IMO his book is right up there with Machen’s. What’s said is that churchmen today are behaving just like they did in Machen’s time and we all know the outcome of that fight. What was that saying about those who refuse to learn from history?
I’m writing this follow-up as a Ruling Elder in the PCA, looking ahead to examining and voting on candidates coming into my Presbytery.
The question, “Do you believe in divine, special creation of Adam and Eve as historical people?” is no longer sufficient. Dr. Collins affirms this. We must also ask something that Dr. Collins apparently is not willing to affirm: “Do you believe that the events recorded in Genesis 2 and 3 are literal history, which events are summarized in Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 4:2, 6:1, 7:2. Larger Catechism Question 17, 20, 21, and 22, and Shorter Catechism Question 12, 13, 15, and 16?” We must press home this point in every examination. We must also frame the question in such a way that the candidate cannot evade the issue. As my fellow Presbyters well know, this can be difficult, exhausting work.
Suppose that the candidate for ordination, or a Teaching Elder seeking to join the Presbytery, cannot or will not affirm that the events recorded in Genesis 2 and 3 are literally, historically true. This failure to affirm can take one of two forms, either “I deny it” or “I’m not certain.” Either way, the Presbytery must then decide if the candidate’s views strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine.
This is another “flashpoint,” as I see it, in the PCA. Will the PCA accept ministers in good standing who cannot affirm a belief in the literal historical nature of the various events recorded in Genesis 2 and 3? If the answer is already “Yes,” we’re in more serious trouble than I feared.
At the risk of being overly repetitious, I’ll state it again: Just saying that Adam and Even were specially created by God is NOT enough. Maybe it was sufficient a generation ago, but not now. Today, we must dig deeper, press harder, and force the issue every time.
Should we be angry, or sad? Both. It’s a terrible situation, but one we must face. Some of us are willing to draw a line in the sand. May we have the strength and perseverance to fight this good fight. Give ground here, and what will be the next events of Biblical history to be abandoned? The Exodus? The incarnation? The resurrection? It’s happened before, and within the lifetime of some who still remember.
Frank, this is indeed an important issue in our PCA. I think you’ve said before that you are a RE in Hattiesburg, MS. Might your Sr. Pastor Dr. Lucas have some insight on this matter since he is not too far removed from teaching at CTS? Would he possibly weigh in here?
Sean reads this blog from time to time, and has posted once or twice. He’s very busy at present, working on the 175th Anniversary history of First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi.
Pastor Otis,
You may also want to write a letter to the board of CTS (aren’t they elected by the PCA GA?). Of course many are covenant grads or REs in MO Presbytery…
Frank,
I concur with your posting about what needs to be asked at presbytery levels. Fortunately, in the RPCUS, we don’t have this problem because if a man doesn’t hold to a literal 24 hour period six day creation, then the exam is over and a unanimous vote of no is recorded.
Sadly, you don’t have that liberty in the PCA, and I think it will get worse unless God shows you all mercy.
One thing I think you men need to do in the PCA is to send your own letters to Dr. Chapell at Covenant Seminary as I did. Dr. Chapell is on vacation, but his secretary received my email and said she will see Dr. Chapell gets it.
Covenant Seminary needs to know that the churches of the Lord Jesus will not put up with such unfaithfulness on part of its seminary.
Unless the churches notify Covenant Seminary of their grave concern and terminate their support of the seminary, then the seminary will do nothing.
Frank, I understand. 175 years. Wow! That is a great testament to the gospel ministry for a very long time. Congratulations.
Andrew,
I will send a letter to the board of CTS. Of course, they may view it as nothing seeing that I am not in the PCA.
This is why many elders from various churches need to send a letter to the president and board of CTS.
For those interested in writing a letter to the board of directors of Covenant Seminary you will find a list of the individual board members at this link:
http://doulosresources.org/about/Board/board.html
I intend to send each board member a copy of my letter I sent Dr. Chapell. As it turns out, I went to seminary at RTS with one of the board members, Lee Ferguson.
I will read Dr. Collins’ new book, “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” and make extensive notes. Thus far, I’ve commented only on Rachel’s review and the article from ASA Journal. I plan to withhold a more formal response until I finish the book.
Agree with the commenters who have correctly urged specific tough questions of candidates and transfers. Part of why I’m presbyterian rather than congregational. But will add that I intend to add the same questions at the congregation level, with letter to pastoral search committee.
There’s another possible response to a hot-button question, and one we hear far too often. When a candidate begins his answer with, “Well, good men differ on this question . . .” you should see a huge red flag emblazoned with “Danger Ahead!” That’s often a sign that waffling, evasion, and obfuscation will soon follow. The proper answer to “What do you believe?” is never what others believe.
Pastor Otis,
The list at that link is not a list of the Board of Trustees of Covenant Theological Seminary. The Board is as follows:
Class of 2015
TE Chris Harper, Siouxlands
TE C. Scott Parsons, Tennessee Valley
RE Samuel N. Graham, Covenant
RE Miles E. Gresham, Evangel
RE S. Fleetwood Maddox Jr., Central GA
RE Ronald McNalley, North Texas
Class of 2014
TE John K. Haralson Jr., Pacific NW
TE Jonathan Seda, Heritage
RE Scott M. Allen, GA Foothills
RE Robert E. Hamby Jr., Calvary
RE Paul R. Stoll, Chicago Metro
RE Gif Thornton, Nashville
Class of 2013
TE William L. Boyd, South Texas
RE Robert B. Hayward Jr., Susq, V.
TE Joseph V. Novenson, TN Valley
RE Steve Thompson, Rocky Mtn
RE Frank Wicks, Missouri
RE John Halsey Wood, Evangel
Class of 2012
TE Robert K. Flayhart, Evangel
TE David G. Sinclair Sr., Calvary
RE Mark Ensio, Houston Metro
RE William B. French, Missouri
RE Edward S. Harris, Missouri
RE Craig Stephenson, E. Carolina
Frank, do not not good men differ about many things? Do not good Reformed men differ about many things?
Bill,
Yes, of course they do. And there’s a time and place to discuss these differences, passionately and in great detail. But–when you hear this as a candidate’s initial response to a specific question about his beliefs during an exam, it often signals that evasion is ahead. That’s just my own experience. Yours may be different. I certainly hope so!
Jerry,
Thanks for the correction on the board of directors. You wouldn’t know how I can get their emails do you?
I asked Dr. Don Crowe if he would read Dr. Collins’ article and get involved in this battle. Dr. Crowe responded thanking me for the notification and will either respond to me or post directly here. Dr. Crowe already knew of Jack Collins and was already aware of the fact that his views were bad.
Dr. Crowe is the author of the book I keep recommending, “Creation Without Compromise.” Dr. Crowe is a professor of Hebrew and Greek at a school in the Atlanta area.
Here’s a more responsible appraisal of the issues involved in this manufactured controversy:
http://www.barlowfarms.com/index/cm_id/1868289
How do different readers interpret Collins’ statement on p. 159: “I have tried to provide for these possibilities more than to contend for my particular preferences on these matters”? What do you suppose his intent was in writing that? Was his intent to evade or give readers the idea that his objective is to evade? Was it possibly something else?
I think we have to keep in mind that the readership of the American Scientific Association (ASA) journal, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, is not interested primarily on whether the possibilities outlined were true to the WCF, WLC, WSC, and other constitutional documents of the PCA. However, it seems noteworthy that in end note 2 (p. 162) that Collins writes: “I am a minister in a conservative Presbyterian body, which practices what it calls “good faith subscription” to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Like Lewis, who explained that no one is actually supposed to live simply on “mere Christianity,” but must instead associate himself or herself with a church, I readily acknowledge that “mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism” is not a suitable stopping point.” It seems that in this way, Collins tips his hand as to where he is personally bound (and where others practicing “good faith subscription” in his denomination are bound), but not where the different scenarios in his article are bound. Let’s put it this way, the Report of the Creation Study Committee, (a committee on which Collins served), did not provide for theistic evolution as allowable within “good faith subscription.”
I do observe that the way he introduced Kidner’s and Lewis’ scenarios seem to give more prominence to them. Perhaps they do not have the same name recognition, but his first two paragraphs of the 2nd column on p. 160 acknowledge the scenarios surveyed by John Bloom and the ones put forth by Faz Rana and Gavin McGrath, but Collins buries their names in the accompanying notes (72 and 73). Granted, none of these scenarios will be to the liking of young earth creationists, but they do not automatically support the preferences (for ancestors) of evolutionary creationists (as they fancy themselves) like those at Biologos.
In the end, it appears to me that in the Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith article, Collins has not spelled out his own preferences nor argued specifically for them, but identifies “mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism” criteria and a number of scenarios others have advanced that could satisfy those criteria. Perhaps Collins does effectively “provide a theological safe space for those who believe that Adam was a preexisting hominid refurbished by God to become human” as Rachel writes. That would not be objected to by all ASA readers. But, it does not follow that Collins has articulated his own views.
I just ordered Dr. Collins’ book, “Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?” from Westminster Seminary bookstore ($10.60 – 34% off – Be the first on your block to get one!). On the same order is K. Scott Oliphint’s “The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith.” Seemed like an apt pairing.
Frank,
It’s too bad you had to spend hard earned money to buy Collins’ book. I really don’t want him to earn one penny of royalty on any book that teaches non truth.
I’m sure Collins wrote the book for the royalties. We all know that seminary professors and authors of theological books are in it for the money!
I think Dr. Collins book, along with John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One, and B. C. Hodge’s book, Revisiting the Days of Genesis are all making inroads into understanding the text in its historical context rather than against our contemporary context. I highly recommend reading all of them together, as to leave one out would be a great deficiency in one’s understanding of Genesis.
Frank and Bill,
Witnesses start their responses that way all the time–ask a specific question about their opinion/experience/observation/etc., get a discourse on the history of the subject that does not touch directly on any of the issues at hand. Frank’s absolutely correct. It’s a surefire sign that the witness does not want to answer the question because he perceives the truthful response as harmful to himself or his chosen side.
Maybe you should try: “Objection, non-responsive. Move to strike.”
Or maybe not. My husband informs me that normal people find this annoying when used in ordinary conversation.
Taj,
I am not sure what you mean by making enroads in understanding Genesis in its historical context rather than our contemporary context, and when you “highly recommend” Collins’ book, it sounds like you are endorsing the views therein.
Most of the complaints being registered here against Collins’ work is precisely his compromise with the world, and his seeking to understand Genesis in the backdrop of surrounding pagan notions rather than accepting Genesis at face value. He is wanting to adopt the wording of Genesis as some kind of figurative, symbolic, and story line that teaches a worldview. Collins’ hermeneutic is thoroughly flawed.
I will continue to harp on the most glaring deficiency in Collins’ work. He is violating the most fundamental rule in Bible interpretation which is allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. We must not allow extraneous things to God’s Word be the driving force in understanding the Scripture. This is the Achilles heel of Liberalism.
I want to emphasize again Biologos’ major thesis as found on their website:
Here is a direct quote from Biologos’ website from their “About Us.” They say – “We stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom faith and science are mutually hospitable, and we see no necessary conflict between the Bible and the findings of science. We have found that the methods of the natural sciences provide the MOST RELIABLE GUIDE to understanding the material world, and the CURRENT EVIDENCE FROM SCIENCE indicates that the diversity of life is BEST EXPLAINED as a result of an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. Thus we affirm that evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves His purposes. (captilization is mine)
Biologos’s compromise with the world (or should I say adoption of the world) is its placing of Scripture as SUBORDINATE to the methods of the natural sciences, which adopts the “current evidence” from science. This is where Cornelius Van Til’s contribution is so great. All facts of the universe are God’s facts, and God’s Word is the best explanation of these facts. This is the approach of the Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter 1 “Of Scripture.”
Again, I quote 1:4 of the Confession: “The authority of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof, and therefore it is to be received because it is the word of God.”
Need I remind the readers that Paul commended the Thessalonians in I Thessalonians 2:13 that they received his preaching for what it really was – the Word of God! The Thessalonians did not say, “Hold on Paul, we need to check out your teaching from the backdrop of what our philosophers are saying; we need to consider the historical context of our surroundings before we consider what you are saying.”
Brethren, we don’t need the testimony of men (the natural sciences) to interpret the Scripture for us!!!!
The authority of Scripture is NOT based upon placing Scripture under man’s understaning of the world. Nay, God’s Word is true, and unbelievers are in no position to offer anything to question God’s Word. Have we ever heard of the doctrine of total depravity? II Corinthians 4:3-4 states that the god of this world (the devil) has blinded the minds of unbelievers that they cannot see the gospel. I Cor.2:14 emphatically teaches that the natural man (unbeliever) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God and views them as foolishness.
The natural sciences cannot stand in judgment of God’s Word! If I learned anything from reading Van Til and Francis Schaeffer, to name a few, is that all thinking begins with presuppositions, and we all interpret evidence in light of our governing presuppositions. The unbelieving world begins its thinking in rebellion to God. Why do you think that non-Christian and Christian scientists can look at the SAME EVIDENCE and come to completely differing conclusions? It’s obvious.
The Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom (Prov. 1:7; 9:10). Colossians 2:3 says that Christ is the treasure house of all wisdom. Paul says in Col. 2:8 “Seee to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, ACCORDING TO THE TRADITION OF MEN, ACCORDING TO THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD, RATHER THAN ACCORDING TO CHRIST” (Capitalization for emphasis is mine)
I will be blunt. Jack Collins has blatantly violated these biblical principles; he has betrayed the Faith at this point which is why he should be fired from Covenant Seminary.
Collins shows his affinity with Biologos when he says on p. 148 of his article – “Most recently, discoveries about the feature of human DNA seem to imply that the human population has always had at least as many as a thousand members. Prominent among the Christian biologists is Francis Collins and his “Biologos” perspective, which agrees that traditional beliefs about Adam and Eve ARE NO LONGER VIABLE (Emphasis mine).
Collins’ article does not distance himself from Francis Collins’ view, but sees it as a possibility that deserves consideration.
Jack Collins’ major failure and betrayal is: He functionally does not agree with Westminster Confession 1:4. Rather, he adopts the major thesis of Biologos that the natural sciences are the most reliable guide to interpreting what Scripture means. Collins’ thinking is of the world. I am sorry but that is what his article clearly demonstrates.
I cannot help but stress the importance of pastors and elders in the PCA, particularly, to flood Covenant Seminary with letters of protest about Jack Collins’ teaching.
Seminaries are the preping grounds for future preachers in pulpits across America. Do you really want to have to engage in vigorous questioning of candidates in your presbytery examinations?
Consider what someone on the other posting of this subject said: A significant number of Covenant students have already been infected with Dr. Collins’ poison, and yes I mean to say, “poison.”
Imagine these infected students becoming pastors and elders in churches, and now they constitute a “voting block” to accept other men coming in who are “theistic evolutionists.” It would serve all well to read Morton Smith’s work of 30 years ago, “How the Gold Becomes Dim” which traces the demise of the PCUS in its courts.
The truth is: the PCA is headed the way of the PCUS in its view of creation.
As the old addage states: “We can learn from history, or be doomed to repeat its mistakes.”
Why do you think there is trouble in your presbyteries with the Federal Vision? These presbyteries have already been infected with Federal Vision men.
If Peter Leithart escapes, just imagine how bold others FV men will become in other presbyteries.
If you don’t stop Jack Collins’ teaching, then this hideous perspective of Genesis will become more and more acceptable, and you gentlemen who love God’s Word, and who are defending a truly biblical understanding of Genesis will find yourselves on the defensive. You will become “the troublemakers.” You will eventually become the minority. Don’t think it cant and wont happen.
Frank,
I hope you are preparing a position paper against Dr. Collins’ book.
Frank,
I did not heed your advice on my last two major postings by preparing my comments in a word document and then copy to this site. Consequently, I have some typos as well, for which, I apologize.
Thank you, John, for your encouraging words above. Lord willing, I’m less than two years away from retirement from my current, full-time “secular” job. At that time, I hope to have much more time to write, teach, and serve in God’s kingdom. (100% would be nice!) At present, however, I’m usually at the office six days per week, plus church and family responsibilities. Not complaining, mind you. I’m very thankful. I’m just pressed for time.
As I’ve written before, I trust that others, some in the PCA, with more time and talent than I, will do the “heavy lifting” of extensive research and position papers. I will continue to read, take notes, speak and write as I’m able, share with others, and serve in my Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly as God permits.
As I write this, I note that Rachel’s original review of Dr. Collins’ book appeared only eight days ago! Seems like weeks at least, doesn’t it? In my opinion, what we’re experiencing here is the Internet at its best, not its worst. Consider what a few men and women have been able to write in a little over a week. The conversation is in full swing, and it’s not likely to go away. Dr. Collins’ writings are easily accessible. His new book is inexpensive, and available from a major publisher. We should thank him for linking to the article that he says is a summary of his book. I may not have discovered it otherwise. (Note: Anything that can be printed on a computer can be saved as a pdf file, for free. Within five minutes after following the link to the article, I had saved it as a pdf, filed it in a new folder, transferred it to my iPad, and printed a hard copy. Within hours, I had e-mailed it to several friends.) In today’s electronic environment, an author can neither run nor hide. In spite of all the problems it brings, this is surely a good thing.
Think how vastly different the situation was during my years at seminary, 1970-73. Long distance calls were expensive. There were no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet, no e-mail, no texting, no tweets, no CD’s, no mp3’s. Gathering information about books was time-consuming, and placing orders was cumbersome – from flyers and paper catalogs, no less! Want to share with a friend the great article you just read? Get to a copy machine, then to the post office. The instant communication we take for granted was the stuff of Star Trek. In the early 1980’s, I can remember a weeks-long process to acquire a cassette tape from the UK of one of Dr. Lloyd-Jones’ last sermons. I think I learned about it from a notice in the Banner of Truth magazine. I also recall several letters by mail, researching exchange rates (without the web, no less!), sending a money order, and waiting more weeks for the tape to arrive. You young ‘uns out there can scarcely imagine that world.
So, at this point in the process I’m encouraged. We are at the information-gathering stage. Everything moves now at a much faster pace than when the Federal Vision controversy broke wide open in 2002. I realize that even today events will unfold too slowly for some. Better to take the time, however, to “read, learn, and inwardly digest.”
Remember also that Dr. Collins, and any author for that matter, has full access to the same media that we do. If we have misunderstood or misrepresented him in any way, he has multiple means to correct us, and very quickly too. Many Seminary professors would give up a sabbatical for this kind of “buzz.” Surely every faithful Teaching Elder in a conservative, confessional Church would desire widespread discussion of his views, reading of his articles, and sale of his books. Everything hidden shall be brought to light – isn’t that a Biblical principle?
There’s one other encouraging thing, which is also very significant. Some who read this blog may not know that Covenant Theological Seminary is not an independent institution. It is an official agency of the Presbyterian Church in America and, as such, answers directly to the PCA. CTS is officially committed to the Westminster Standards, as are all officers in the PCA. It is bound to uphold, not only the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, but the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures as expressed in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms. At this stage, I trust the Board and Administration of Covenant Seminary to insure that no faculty member teaches anything contrary to the Standards. Let’s call it “good faith self-governance.” The church will be watching.
I encourage everyone to continue to write and speak on this subject. Most importantly, do your homework. Get the facts straight. Be patient, be gracious, and be firm. Don’t bend an inch where the truth of God is at stake. But be correct, and be willing to be corrected if necessary. In the long run, there is no “downside” to this process, as long as the Word of God triumphs and our actions are honorable.
@Steve says:
July 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM:
Steve,
You’ve presented the best case possible for the “judgment of charity” reading of Dr. Collins’ ASA article. I’ve tried very hard to land there. I’ve had to balance that, however, with Dr. Collins’ apparent difficult with affirming the literal, historical nature of the events of Genesis chapter 2 and 3. Until he can do that clearly and unequivocally, I remain concerned. It’s not enough to acknowledge that “’mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism’ is not a suitable stopping point.” Precisely what is the suitable stopping point? And who does that stopping point compare with (here I go again) Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 4:2, 6:1, 7:2; Larger Catechism Question 17, 20, 21, and 22; and Shorter Catechism Question 12, 13, 15, and 16.
To twist some tired cliches, this is not brain science or rocket surgery. You either believe that Genesis 2 and 3 record observable, factually correct, literal, historical events, or you do not. You either allow for the possibility of God’s “soul-infusion” (my term) to create the image of God in pre-existing hominids, or you do not. You either subscribe to the witness of the Confession and Catechisms to the Bible text, or you do not. If there’s a halfway house between “mere historical Adam-and-Eve-ism” and traditional orthodoxy/Reformed confessionalism in this matter, I want to see it. I’m done with scholarly side-stepping of the real issue. This is too critical an issue for musings from the easy chair. The health of the church and the spiritual lives of our people are at stake.
Concerned Presbyter, I followed your link to Barlow. Chuckled over being part of a “right wing of the PCA” discussion.
Here’s a “thought experiment” for you (and for Collins and for Barlow): what would a person shaking hands with Adam think about his parentage (provided that person had no access to special revelation)? Would they think Adam had a mommy? Putting that on a, heh, scientific basis, what would a geneticist have concluded from a DNA analysis of some of Adam’s hair?
In Collins’ book “Gen 1-4″, he provides a one paragraph dismissal (sans interaction) of the approach which would suggest the above thought experiment when contemplating the genetic evidence Collins finds compelling (and which Barlow wrestles with, albeit skeptically).
@ Pastor Otis. “Why do you think that non-Christian and Christian scientists can look at the SAME EVIDENCE and come to completely differing conclusions? It’s obvious.”
Maybe to your reading list you can add Gordon Clark’s, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God . IMO the problem is even deeper than even many here suspect. The problem is not with conflicting and contradictory conclusions, but with how all conclusions of science are arrived at regardless if they come from non-Christian or the Christian scientists. Science, while infinitely useful (we wouldn’t have all those cool things Frank mentions above without it), is a non-cognitive enterprise; it does not and can not arrive at the knowledge of anything. Clark explains why.
From the Trinity Foundation’s description of the book which I think are relevant to this discussion:
@ Roy. I wondering of the self-styled “Concerned Presbyter” realizes that Barlow is a Federal Vision shill and has been for years? It’s funny how these guys all flock together.
Barlow is a piece of work. He writes:
This is a great example of someone who has abandoned logic. If the Scriptures states as a universal proposition that *all* crows are black and if even one isn’t, then it would follow that the Bible is in error concerning crows.
Another example of the abandonment of logic. Barlow writes again:
Induction is always fallacious. Concerning the problem of induction, atheist and enemy of Christianity but a friend of science, Bertrand Russel, said:
And, since Barlow likes crows, Dr. W. Gary Crampton writes (who is a great friend of Christianity and who understands the empistemic limits of science):
In the NASB, for those of you who favor old-school literalism, Genesis 1:26-27 sure reads as if Adam was a de novo and unique creation rather than a pre-existing template which God modified suitably to bear His image. Neither does the text doesn’t seem to reasonably envision a tribe of which Adam was the king, as Dr. Collins allows, since God specifically tells them to be fruitful and multiply. If God were addressing a tribe, this portion of Scripture would not make any sense since they had already multiplied into a tribe. Of course of one *needs* to find that in the text, one may conveniently put it there. Please see your favorite FV guy for helpful techniques.
In Genesis 2:7 it is difficult for simple me to understand how “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” somehow actually means “God stamped His image onto a pre-existing hominid.” And I guess “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed” actually means that God rounded up the pre-existing tribe headed by Adam and corralled them in a nice place somewhere east of where they previously were. Or something.
Genesis 2:22 says, “The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.” That doesn’t sound to me anything like God appointing Eve as queen over a pre-existing tribe of hominids. It seems to use language more compatible with creating something new from raw materials, just as in the creation of Adam.
But, I’m not a poet, I know it, and I don’t have a poetic license.
In recent science news you can use, Neanderthal genome fragments have been sequenced, and it appears that they interbred with “modern humans” everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa. Unexpectedly. Also, a bunch of white smokers have been discovered hiding in plain sight a whole 160 feet under the ocean surface north of Antarctica near the Sandwich Islands. Unexpectedly.
But let not your hearts be troubled. You can still trust the Settled Science about what happened to produce the current genome composition of mankind, and you can trust the Settled Science regarding geology and the Flood, even though said Settled Science failed to discover some pretty spectacular geologic features just under their noses.
Run, don’t walk, to buy the book by Andrew S. Kulikovsky, “Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation” (Mentor, Christian Focus). The entire work is superb. Chapter 8, “Creation of Humanity and the Garden of Eden” (pp. 177-196) is especially important for our discussion here. If I began quoting from this chapter, I’d never stop.
Sounds similar to the scientific accomodationist trap the late Meredith Kline (the Westminsters) fell into.
From the intro to his ‘Space & Time in the Genesis Cosmogony’: “To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.”
And final footnote: “In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).”
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html
This isn’t the same book, but the same Biblical text. From the back cover of Jack Collins’ commentary on Genesis 1-4:
“From every standpoint–methodological and theological, structural and syntactical, linguistic and literary, apologetic and worldview–this expository survey is a model of ‘good reading’ of the text. Here you have a landmark treatment of Genesis 1-4 as canonical communication from God, a work of detailed scholarship that no serious student or honest teacher will henceforth be able to ignore.”
– J.I. Packer
I’m pretty sure Jack Collins is playing for our team. If you have a problem with Collins, you probably have a problem with J. I. Packer, since he seems to agree with Collins’ interpretation of the first four chapters of Genesis.
Yes, if such is the case, I do have a problem with Packer’s agreement with Collins on this point. And having said that, motrw- not a one of us has it 100% correct. “on our team” isn’t the issue at hand… I’m sure Collins, Packer, Tim Keller, Rob Rayburn, and a hundred other men are “on our side”. That doesn’t preclude us from having deep theological disagreements with them on points, and it is those points, not the men, that are being discussed.
You might also note that most of the men disavowing the acceptance of the literal interpretation of Genesis are deeply involved in the academic community. Draw your own conclusions.
But when a young PCA pastor gives an excellent presentation of the theistic evolutionist interpretation of Genesis as the lead in to his Sunday sermon, and adds a throw-away line “and if you think it happened in 6 days, it’s ok to believe that too”, what is the message he gives his flock about the integrity of the word of God, and the meaningfulness of the Standards we say we believe?
J.I. Packer’s endorsement of his commentary may be apt, and I agree Dr Collins believes he is playing for out team. However, the issue remains, Dr Collins seems to believe our team is bigger than it is. Scripture clearly defines certian things in regard to creation, but Dr Collins wants to permit concepts of how man was created beyond what scripture allows. And for those who would point out that Dr Collins’ personal beliefs are orthodox, the serious issue at hand is that he would like to allow a broader definition of orthodoxy than has been set by God in his Word, or than is allowed by the confessional standards he has sworn to uphold.
Regarding Jack Collins and “Adam & Eve as Historical People, and Why it Matters.”
People are fascinated with the spectacle of an implosion. In 1997 the old Atlanta Fulton County Stadium was imploded. One YouTube video has had over 628,000 hits. I think it is a good illustration of the way that 3 well placed Biblical truths implode the house of the evolutionary mythology. These three truths are 1) Creation ex nihilo in six days 2. The worldwide catastrophic judgment of the Flood 3. The Chronology of Scripture. To those for whom Scripture is the Ultimate standard it is a joy to see the godless mythology of evolution implode and collapse. But for those who have succumbed to years of evolutionary indoctrination, these biblical passages are only an embarrassment to be explained away. In this view the Bible must beat a hasty retreat when confronted with the current ‘scientific’ consensus. Liberals, of course, merely dismiss out of hand the account of Genesis and go on their way. But it creates [or does it ‘evolve’] a crisis for those who want to maintain a high view of Scripture, yet not go against their academic training.
C. John Collins has undertaken a worthy project: To show Adam and Eve as Historical People, and Why it matters. Sadly it must be a rather tepid defense because of his compromise with the evolutionary worldview, especially in the area of chronology. It doesn’t exactly stir up a strong sense of commitment to the Word of the Creator.
There are some good points in the 19 page presentation with 79 footnotes. The italicized portion at the introduction is good. On page 149 “The Bible loses its forceful and formative power by being absorbed into a more encompassing secular story.” Page 152 “The theology is not separable from the story…” page 161 “…the traditional understanding of Adam and Eve, as our first parents who brought sin into human experience, is worthy of our confidence and adherence.” The whole conclusion section is a strong finish.
The problem is that in between there is much that weakens the case like a trumpet with an uncertain sound—now quietly sounding the charge, then loudly sounding retreat. When I wrote Creation Without Compromise, I meant by ‘compromise’ those views shaped by the evolutionary worldview. In other words those views that want to remove the 3 explosive charges and save the evolutionary structure. I will refer to these views as ‘evolutionized’.
In the many articles and books I have read that promote evolutionized ‘interpretations’ there is almost always an attempt to make a straightforward reading of Genesis seem hopelessly ambiguous or even contradictory. All this so that some novel evolutionized theory may come to the rescue. Most commonly there is no sign of knowing the creationist literature.
Collins early on brings up the ghost of Galileo. I have discussed this issue in my book. In brief the church of the middle ages adopted an Aristotelian view of cosmology and interpreted poetical sections of scripture to fit with it. After all the doctors of the universities were convinced of Aristotle’s cosmology, so surely the Bible must agree. In the late 19th century until now large parts of the church adopted various figurative interpretations of the historical narratives of Genesis because, after all, the doctors of the universities were convinced of evolution’s tenants.
More than once Dr. Collins brings up the myths of the ANE. The Genesis record is seen as coming later than these pagan stories as either a reaction against them or an accommodation to them. What if we understood the similarities and differences with the biblical account while taking the chronology of Scripture more seriously? Then for the Flood we have 8 human beings survive on the ark. From these 3 sons of Noah descend all the peoples of the earth. Those three sons could not have gotten the details of the Flood wrong because they lived through it. But following the Tower of Babel, the dispersion of people groups, and the confusion of languages distorted versions would arise. So I see the biblical account as the God-breathed accurate record and pagan accounts as remembering the reality of the event but often deliberately distorting the details so as not to glorify God.
Then there is the matter of what kind of literature Genesis is. Let’s see some choices:
1. ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2. ESV 2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
3. The author was talking about what he thought were actual events,…
Presumably Collins would want to choose all of the above, whereas I chose only 1 & 2.
The hesitancy to accept the biblical account as literal chronological history leads to a toying with the term myth as a fitting description and the suggestion to interpret Gen. 1-11 by the Mesopotamian myths. The source of the footnotes is telling. OF the 79 footnotes, 78 are from partially or wholly evolutionized sources. Footnote 24 alone refers to a ‘young earth creationist’ Dr. Douglas Kelly. While Kitchen and Kidner are quoted in full [with their totally imaginary refurbished hominids] with commendation of Kidner as ‘wise.’ Kelly is given but three non consecutive words with a derogatory remark. Dr. Kelly is represented as if he merely asserted that Genesis was historical narrative without any discussion of genres. This is not so. Kelly interprets historical narrative in the way it should be interpreted. Collins insists on a kind-of sort-of non-literal non-chronological history. Now if an author claimed to have written a non-literal, non-chronological history of Colonial America, we might think he is a few bananas short of a full bunch. Apparently this kind of thinking is acceptable when ‘rescuing’ the Bible from the threat of evolution. Sure the poor primitive herdsman THOUGHT the events he recorded were true, but what is that to those who know better than any who have come before.
On page 151 Collins tentatively suggest that maybe there were Hebrew written records, beginning with Abraham. But the ESV Study Bible has this note on Gen. 5.1-2 The heading differs from all the others by referring to a book. [This is of course before Abraham!]
The typical easy dismissal of Biblical chronology is found in part on page 158. “Further it is well established that the genealogies of Genesis 5 do not intend to list every generation; gaps are to be expected.” Thus the actually text of Scripture can be marginalized and dismissed because somehow today’s evolutionized scholars have discerned their INTENT to be non-chronological.
The first assertion is easily countered by a second: “There can be no doubt that the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11 intend to present a continual chronological record of the family history.” But people can assert anything they want to, so how do we know? By looking at the grammar and syntax of the text of Scripture. Let’s see which of these verses will prove that the writer of Genesis had no interest in chronology.
1. Genesis 7:11 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
2. Genesis 8:13-14 13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry. 14 And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
3. Genesis 5:25-27 25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
4. None of the above, and no verse anywhere in Scripture.
WE must note that Collins does think we can go too far in adopting the evolutionary worldview—George Gaylord Simpson is specifically cited as going to excess. So Collins with many others want to adopt only parts of the evolutionary worldview, mostly its chronology in preference to biblical chronology.
At first glance this seems ok. WE could reason that as long as we know God created, it doesn’t matter when or how. But the real problem is the bizarre hermeneutic that must be employed to maintain this view. A kind of subjective and imaginative interpretation that no evangelical would use anywhere else.
Marcus Dods got one thing right when he said “The candid interpreter” cannot avoid being literal; “IF for example the word ‘day’ in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty –four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”
The failure to presuppose the authority of Scripture to interpret all of life is clearly seen in such remarks as p. 159. From the paleontologists, we learn that Adam and Eve, if they are indeed at the headwaters of the human race, must come before such events as the arrival of modern humans in Australia which means before 40,000 BC. ‘Collins picks a date more recent than the evolutionists’ 2 million years ago, but much more remote than the Biblical chronology of about 6,000 years ago.
We must not adopt the biblical chronology, he says, because paleontologists won’t allow it. But what of the modern opinion among evolutionary scientists that resurrection is impossible and mythical. They would say dead people do not rise from the dead and it would be unscientific to suggest such a thing. Should be use the same bizarre hermeneutic on the gospels as was used on Genesis? Rudolph Bultmann thought so. How about this interpretation: “The disciples, poor dumb fishermen that they were, wrote what they thought was true.” We now know that many of the things they wrote about could not literally have happened. So we must not read the gospel in a literalistic way, our local paleontologists will not allow us to do so.
Now should we get into an argument like “My fossil expert [Dr. Marvin Lubenow] is better than your fossil expert.” ? My Ph.D. fossil expert rejects the evolutionary timescale, he will not allow me to interpret Genesis in any figurative poetic evolutionized way. I suggest close attention to the text of scripture.
I heartily concur with Frank who recommended Andrew S. Kulikovsky’s Creation, Fall, Restoration.
For those wanting to see how ‘evidence’ discovered in creation can be interpreted in a biblical framework see http://www.creation.com which has thousand of articles by PhD scientists and biblical scholars. The meaning of scripture is properly drawn OUT OF its words and syntax; the meaning is always distorted by reading into the text the opinions of paleontologists or other evolutionary scientists.
We should learn the vast difference between the very same evidence before us all, and the very different stories or interpretations of the evidence. Observational experimental science is one thing, a reliable thing, but speculative hypotheses concerning the evidence are quite another! None of the alleged difficulties asserted about the literal chronological reading of Genesis is unanswerable. [some barely make sense!]Get answers. Trust the God-breathed scriptures above all else. God the Creator was there and cannot lie and He is omniscient.
If anyone is up to a 60 pages technical Hebrew exegesis, the following link is to an article by Dr. Robert McCabe.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2006/McCabe.pdf
Mark B.
That a good, succinct way to state the issue.
Horace,
Your last paragraph about the young PCA pastor’s sermon ties in perfectly with a conversation I had earlier this week. I spoke with a well-respected PCA pastor with decades of experience in the ministry. He told me that any view other than young-earth, six-day creation and literal Adam and Eve as presented in the text “will not preach.” The average man and woman in the pew will not buy it (thank God!). In spite of all the fancy scholarly footwork involved in circling around the text, the “average” Christian is drawn to the plain teaching of the Word of God. “Literal, when possible, according to the context” is still good hermeneutics. John, Jane, and little Timmy and Sally (or should it be Jason and Brittany?) may not be able to define the “analogy of faith” either, but more often than not they can spot nonsense when they see it.
During the past week, I realize that I’ve been sadly naive for many years. I think I understand now why there’s so little preaching and teaching on the early chapters of Genesis in our PCA churches. Many men really have nothing more to say than, “God created all things. He made humans in His image in some special way, and they sinned against Him. That’s about it, folks. Everything else you read in the text is up for grabs. Let’s move on. Nothing more to see here.” (I know that I’ve oversimplified for effect.) What a wretched, insulting way to handle the precious, inerrant Word of God.
Hugh,
Thanks for that final footnote from Meredith Kline. I’ve never been a big fan of Kline, largely because of his cavalier treatment of the historical details of Genesis 1-3 (sound familiar?). Thanks for the link. I will read the article.
Dr. Crowe,
Thank you so much for the long post, which is a balanced view of Dr. Collins’ article. Your book has moved to the front of the line on my reading list.
MoTRW,
I don’t have a problem having a problem with anyone who has a problem with a common-sense reading of the text of Scripture. I don’t even care if he has blurbed as many books as J.I. Packer has or has written as many books as J.I. Packer has. If J.I. Packer is wrong, well, then, he’s wrong, just like the rest of us who apparently aren’t Members of the Real World.
I don’t care if the flights of fancy taken with the text are of the Jordan/Leithart/Wilson FV genre or the Theistic Evolution genre or the Feminist genre or the EmergyClergy/Liberal genre. If one’s hermeneutic isn’t sound, then all the “sound thinking” in the world isn’t going to help. What kind of doctrine of inspiration makes room for the apparent gross failure of the Holy Spirit to communicate clearly which is implied by these fanciful hermeneutics?
As Mark B. and others have pointed out, it is not enough merely to affirm what is true (in this case Adam and Eve as historical figures and Adam’s federal headship.) It is also crucial to deny what is false in no uncertain terms, and the responsibility to do so increases with one’s influence and particularly if one is a pastor or teacher of pastors.
And here’s a little marketing open secret of the publishing industry: blubs are carefully wordsmithed, and the blurb you cited is an excellent example.
I must repeat this from Dr. Crowe, above, which gets to the very heart of the matter:
“WE must note that Collins does think we can go too far in adopting the evolutionary worldview—George Gaylord Simpson is specifically cited as going to excess. So Collins with many others want to adopt only parts of the evolutionary worldview, mostly its chronology in preference to biblical chronology.
At first glance this seems ok. WE could reason that as long as we know God created, it doesn’t matter when or how. But the real problem is the bizarre hermeneutic that must be employed to maintain this view. A kind of subjective and imaginative interpretation that no evangelical would use anywhere else.”
I hereby retire my feeble phrase “fancy footwork” in favor of “bizarre hermeneutic.”
“A kind of subjective and imaginative interpretation that no evangelical would use anywhere else.” Indeed. We must press this point constantly and relentlessly.
Dr. Crowe,
Thank you for your informative comment, and I second your recommendation of Creation.com. From reading your comment, it is apparent that I should always hit “refresh” and read the latest comments on the thread before commenting myself…
Endorsements should be ignored!
Seriously, sometimes I don’t think the men who make the endorsement actually read the book. There have been many occasions where good solid men ‘make the mistake’ of endorsing a book and it is a piece of garbage.
When was Collins book written. Packer’s late years are known for him to make contradictory comments to his earlier good years. Old age does that sometimes… I wouldn’t put too much weight on a man’s endorsement of a book.
I would imagine this is old news to many here since it seems most have been in this fight for some time, but one danger of debates over origins is that sometimes our so-called friends turn out to be our worst enemies. Hugh McCann (above) posted a link on my blog not long ago concerning the “Hoax of Scientific Creationism” that I had forgotten about. It might be a good refresher for some on the difference between scientific and biblical creationism. FWIW I’m of the latter group as I would hope all those here opposing Dr. Collins would be as well.
From my blog today at The Christian Curmudgeon on Machen and the PCA:
J. Gresham Machen would not have been or well received among some conservatives in the PCA.. Machen was representative of the confessional orthodoxy associated with old Princeton Seminary. His views were on a compatible continuum with those of the Hodges and Warfield. These men were, to cite one example, much too open to the findings of science and to the harmonization of Biblical material with the tentative findings of science, for the comfort of my brothers. (The chapter, Salvation and Science, demonstrates this clearly.) He would not want to put one of the greatest defenders of Biblical inspiration and inerrancy out of the Church. But we need not devote much labor to Machen and right of the PCA which is a pimple on the rather ample backside to the PCA.
It is the relationship of Machen to the broad middle and left of the PCA that interests me.
Bill,
My “right” views (meaning both correct and in the opposite direction of the left) have never been described as a pimple on anyone’s backside, let alone the ample one of the PCA. That’s an image that will stick (sorry) in my head (different part of anatomy — promise) for a long time. I do declare, though, that’s one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. I’m even considering commissioning an artist for a really cool cartoon.
I urge cautious balance when reading Creation Ministries International at creation.com
While concurring with Don Crowe’s post and endorsing his commendation of much CMI offers, I note that it takes positions that box it out of credibility, both scientifically and (more importantly) exegetically.
Specifically, it never mentions much less discusses the concept of mature, entire, complete, appropriate creation. Remember that Adam walked in a garden with fruit on trees growing out of soil watered by rivers (all no more than days, ie, few hundred hours, old). When he saw Eve, she was a babe, not a baby. While mere minutes old, she was, as one put it so well, old enough.
Wish Vern Poythress had wrestled with this a bit more in his excellent “Redeeming Science”, cf esp the 49 pages of chapters 7-10. He comes so close, but, well, waffles.
I’ve reworked my silly limericks from the other thread to say the important things better (you’re the judge!):
The Ancient Near EasternModern Scientific Guide to Genesis 2 and 3
There once were two beings called Eve and her Adam,
God found ‘em one day and decided to grab ‘em.
“I’ll give each a true soul,
To know me is the goal,
When and how this took place I’ll never tell ‘em.”
We read that He taught them by two trees in a garden,
Could be just one, possibly none – oh, that’s a real hard one!
Then a serpent came along,
Or maybe not – I could be wrong.
(If this stuff is not real, what then of God’s pardon?)
@Bill. I have to think everyone here is familiar with the names of those eminent stalwarts who did not hold to a literal 24 day in Genesis from Augustine onward (although I don’t think anyone would say Augustine was “much too open to the findings of science” for the comfort of anyone). Besides the obvious point that the great Augustine could be wrong (and he was wrong about many things, some of which he admitted to later in life, some he didn’t), you obviously miss the point which is that when Collins grants that it is possible for someone to be persuaded “that humans had ‘ancestors,’ and that the human population has always been more than two, he or she does not necessarily have to ditch all traditional views of Adam and Eve,” that Collins has adopted a hermeneutic that is not “sound” at all, and, in fact, undermines all of Scripture not just the first few chapters of Genesis.
Further, there is no mystery what that hermeneutic consists of as Collins explains:
I’ll ask again, did Moses really just think what he was writing about were actual events or was he writing about actual events? As you can probably figure out this is a question quite apart from how one might understand the word “day” in Genesis. Instead, Collins’ novel hermeneutic allows for even the evolutionary fantasy of “Adam as chieftain, or ‘king’ [with Eve as his queen] whose task it is not simply to rule a people but more importantly to represent them” is something that Collins says deserves our “consideration.” Give me a break.
So while “we need not devote much labor to Machen and right of the PCA which is a pimple on the rather ample backside to the PCA,” I think fidelity to Scripture requires men of good conscience to excise that pimple when it turns into a cyst.
I propose the following reading of Genesis 11:1-9, using the “historical core” hermeneutic:
This story teaches us that sinful human beings center on themselves and will unite to oppose God. God will frustrate their plans every time, however.
Don’t worry about the details, which may or may be literally, factually true. There is probably a historical core behind the narrative, but we have no way to know what it actually was. There may or may not have been a real tower. God may not have scattered the people through a decisive, space-time, observable event. The story may have no real connection with the origin of multiple languages. (See scholars of modern linguistics for authoritative guidance. We must be careful that the Bible story does not conflict with our views of Proto-Indo-European.)
Take that, you who are still shackled by “excessive literalism.” Claiming that there’s a “historical core” in any passage of Scripture, but never having to specify its content, is pretty easy once you get the hang of it.
Thinking through the implications of allowing for Adam to have been merely a pre-existing hominid whom God selected to bear His image: What does that do to our Christology if we say that God became man, and the man He became is merely a pre-existing hominid stamped with God’s image?
I’m reminded of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School prof back in the 80′s or early 90′s (IIRC) who taught that the resurrected body of Christ was not His crucified body (sorry, I can’t remember his name.) There were howls at the time against those who resisted this teaching, but the howlers were howling because they insisted that it was a matter of no great importance because the important thing was that Christ was resurrected.
Those who fought against that peculiar teaching pointed to the implications of that doctrine, not to mention the fact that it ignored the clear testimony of Scripture.
Sound familiar to anyone? And for those who object to thinking through implications, think through the implications of not thinking through implications.
Typo. Should read, “Don’t worry about the details, which may or may not be literally, factually true.”
Hugh McCann sent me a link to an excellent review by astronomer Dr. John Byl: The PCA and the Demolition of Adam.
Here’s a taste:
That’s excellent material from John Byl.
It needs to be supplemented, however. In my opinion, we must always come back to the details of Biblical text, especially Genesis chapters 2 and 3. The rank and file of the PCA, most Ruling Elders, and a surprising number of Teaching Elders, will only “get it” when you send them back to specific passages and ask, “Do you believe this can be only symbolic?” Take them to the garden, the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, the two trees, the fashioning of Eve from his side, the commands, warnings and promises of God, the naming of the animals, the temptation by the serpent, the eating of the forbidden fruit, the dialogue between God and our first parents after their sin, God’s announcement of the “protoevangelium,” the curse on the serpent, the expulsion from the garden. Keep the Biblical text constantly in the foreground. Show that the Confession and Catechisms summarize and witness to the Biblical events. Insist that these things must be literally, historically true, or the entire Bible is in question. Demonstrate that the “analogy of faith” — Scripture interprets Scripture — requires this. Demand that those who tend toward symbolism or the “historical core” view come clean and state what they, without equivocation, can affirm about the text. Don’t led them hide behind scholarly camouflage.
Sean, it seems you shift from Warfield to Augustine. Of course, Augustine was not too open to the tentative findings of science, since science as such did not exist. It would be wrong to take a category that did not exist for him and apply it to him. That’s a problem with other writers and readers, too, including the Biblical authors and original readers. But Warfield and the conservative confessional party at Princeton is another story. It seems to me that most of the contributors in this line find that tradition to be wrong, compromising, equivocating, etc. I graduated from RTS in 1972 and was an original TR and I can tell you that I did not come out of seminary think that a young earth and 24 hour days were tests of Reformed orthodoxy and commitment to the Bible.
Frank, not sure whether to compare you to the pimple or the backside.
@Bill. I chose Augustine preciesly because “science as such did not exist” and to illustrate that it is possible to hold to a day/age view without the lies of the evolutionists tickling the ears of some. You might have noticed I didn’t even mention Warfield or Machen or anyone one else seduced by the “tentative findings of science,” so how I could have shifted from the one to the other is a mystery.
Also, characterizing the findings of science as “tentative” is exactly right. Due to the tissue of fallacies inherent in the scientific method no conclusion of science can never attain truth. Popper said: “… in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ” Christians, who claim to “know the truth” make the fatal (epistemic) error when they act as if science were a cognitive enterprise to which the truths of Scripture must bend. That is the central fatal error in Collins’ his unsound hermeneutic.