Review
of: Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise, by
John M. Otis, Triumphant Publications, 2013, 322 pages.
In
his new book, Theistic Evolution: A Sinful Compromise,
John Otis continues his mission of warning Christians of the heresies
he sees threatening the Church. Like his earlier work, Danger
in the Camp: An Analysis and Refutation of the Heresies of the
Federal Vision, Otis'
special concern does not seem to be with the Church at large, but
specifically with those churches whose doctrinal formularies include
the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. The author is a
pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States
(RPCUS), but his primary focus of attack is not his own denomination,
(of which there are apparently only 9 congregations) but one that he
left some 20 years ago, the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA
numbers some 1400 congregations).
Pastor
Otis is particularly concerned with the growing acceptance of certain
ideas concerning the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis.
Otis believes that the Bible allows only one view of the days of
Genesis 1—that these are literal 24 hours days—and that any
allowance for the possibility of the “days” meaning a long period
of time is a dangerous and sinful heresy. Furthermore, Otis is
convinced that only a young-earth cosmology is faithful to
Scripture—he believes any teaching that the earth might be older
than about 6000 years is also a dangerous heresy and a sinful
compromise.
I
can not find much to praise in this book, except the author's evident
concern to protect the authority of Scripture and to maintain the
purity of the Reformed churches. Those are, I believe, worthy goals.
But I believe his efforts in that direction are significantly
misguided, making this a sad and disappointing book. I
will endeavor to show a few reasons why I believe Otis' efforts are
misguided and do not help the cause of Christ and His Church.
I.
First is the lack of judgement shown in the author's use of sources
and authorities. This is very evident in chapter 2 of the work,
concerning the chronology of Genesis. Here he introduces us to the
work of James Ussher, by way of the words of praise for him written
by one Floyd Nolen Jones. After quoting Jones, Otis observes: “I
think it is noteworthy that Ussher's critics today, such as Peter
Enns and Jack Collins,[two of several "sinful compromisers" attacked by Otis] pale in insignificance to James Ussher, and
both do not merit to be mentioned in the same league as him.” But
he apparently believes that Floyd Nolen Jones is in Ussher's league,
and therefore, Otis must think, Jones is way ahead of men like Enns
and Collins in scholarly credibility. I looked up Mr. Jones on the
web and discovered his “credentials” on his personal website:
“Having
attained a Ph.D. as well as a Th.D., Dr. Jones has garnered majors in
the disciplines of Geology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Theology, and
Education from six institutions of higher learning. A magna cum laude
graduate and an ex-evolutionist, he also possesses a minor in Physics
and is an ordained Minister (SBC). Dr.
Jones twice served as adjunct Professor at Continental Bible College
in Brussels, Belgium and was Chairman of the Department of Biblical
Chronology at Pacific International University.”
This
alone should raise many red flags for a discerning researcher. What
schools did Jones attend? Who granted the PhD and ThD? Is the
Continental Bible College a highly-respected institution? How many
universities do you know that have a “Department of Biblical
Chronology?” Is Pacific International University merely a diploma
mill?
Now for
comparison we can visit the web for information about Enns and
Collins, and we find that Enns has a PhD from Harvard and taught at
an academically respectable seminary (Westminster) for many years.
Similarly, Jack Collins has 2 degrees from M.I.T., plus a PhD from
the University of Liverpool and has had a long teaching career at
another well-known conservative reformed seminary.
Are
Enns and Collins, or Otis and Jones, closer to playing in the same
league as James Ussher? The reader can decide.
II. Another
disturbing tendency in Otis' writing is his apparent conviction that
the way he reads Scripture is the “right way.” So we see repeated
such phrases as “a plain reading...” or a “literal reading...”
or a “literal interpretation...” of Scripture. Otis believes that
Genesis 1-3 cannot be in any sense poetic or symbolic, but must be
interpreted literally. Furthermore, he asserts that the historical
context of the writer or original audience is of no consequence,
since the words are the inspired words of God. Apparently Otis
believes that inspiration means that the language of the ancient
Hebrew people can always be adequately translated in such a way that
the meaning is always clear. It is not necessary, Otis believes, to
approach the text with the questions that the original writer was
seeking to answer, or from the point of view of the original readers.
It seems that Otis believes that an inspired text means that we can
ask modern questions of a text written 3000 years ago and expect to
find a sufficient answer literally given. Now it is one thing to
agree with the confession that all things necessary “for His own
glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down
in scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture.” But it is quite another to assume that any and all
questions may be answered by Scripture. Is it possible that the
questions being asked, and answered, in the time of Moses had nothing
to do with the length of the days of creation? Surely we must agree
that is at least possible.
Otis
also exemplifies poor exegetical methods in his attempt to argue for
a literal “calendar day” interpretation of Genesis 1. He writes:
“A word study for the word 'yom' in the Old Testament
reveals that the preponderant use of this term demands that we
understand it to be a literal twenty-four hour period of time. The
word occurs 1,704 times in the Old Testament, and the overwhelming
usage has to do with a normal day from morning to evening.”
Let's
examine this. Certainly there are more usages of “yom” that
indicate a single day, but there are of course many usages in the Old
and New Testament of “the day” meaning more than a single day,
such as “the day of the Lord” language found in places,
especially in the prophets. For instance: ”For it is the
day
of the Lord's vengeance, and the
year of
recompences for the controversy of Zion.” (Isa. 34:8). In II Cor.
6, Paul quotes Isa 49:8 “and in the day of salvation I helped you.”
Paul then states, “now is the day of salvation.” Would Pastor
Otis suggest that this “day of salvation” that Paul proclaims is
a single 24-hour day? If so, is it the day Paul wrote the letter to
the Corinthians or the day they received the letter? Obviously day
means more than a single day. But what is especially telling in the
author's exegesis is his ignoring the use of the word day or “yom”
in one place in the immediate context of the disputed passage, i.e.
Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in
the day that the Lord God
made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1 has described the Lord
making the earth and the heavens in six “days,” and Otis has
argued that these days can be no other than 24-hour days. Yet here is
Genesis 2 speaking of “the day” (singular) when the earth and
heavens were made. Were the heavens and earth made in six days or in
one? Does Genesis 2 contradict Genesis 1, or does the author of
Genesis simply use the word in another way than Pastor Otis allows?
In “argument 2” of
Chapter 2 of the book, Otis presents “Key Qualifying statements.”
Here he purports to show that the phrase “evening and morning”
always refers to a day as a “twenty-four hour” period. To “prove”
this, he then quotes two passages from Exodus. But unfortunately for
his point, the passages quoted do not depict a 24-hour period, but
rather something like 12 hours. The first text is “the people stood
before Moses from morning until evening.” And the second: “Aaron
and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning.” Now if Otis
wants to show that the language of Genesis 1 (“there was evening
and morning, the nth day”) means a “day” is 24 hours, in
seems rather odd that he would choose a passage that shows an
assembly in the daylight hours and another that describes keeping
lamps lit at night—each passage showing no more that a 12-hour
period.
An objection to Otis'
insistence that “day” in scripture means a 24 hour period is the
usage of the term in II Peter 3:8-9, which says that with the Lord “a
day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.” The
author says this is the “fall back verse that all compromisers want
to use.” Otis admits it is “plainly obvious that this meaning is
to be understood figuratively.” What he doesn't explain, however,
is how it is plainly obvious here that, as he writes, “with God,
time is meaningless.” Especially is this odd, since Otis elsewhere
argues that to suggest that God may create through long periods of
time rather than instantaneously, would be to “rob God of his
glory.”
Pastor Otis apparently
believes that an instantaneous creation is more glorifying to God
than for a creation to be brought to fruition over long ages. Why is
this? Is there anything in the Bible itself to support the conclusion
that God working immediately, rather than mediating his work through
others or through processes, is more glorifying to himself? How about
the glory of God in his Church being established and the gospel being
victorious over his enemies? I know that Otis believes the Church
will be victorious, and he also believes this is not instantaneous,
but a long struggle, entailing the preaching of the gospel and the
faithful obedience of his people. If an architect designs a building,
let us say something on the order of Chartres cathedral, and then
gives the task of construction to stone masons and carpenters who
work on that structure for a hundred years, is the glory of the
architect diminished because the work was mediated through others and
through time? I think not. Indeed, when the work is successfully
completed, it is perhaps all the more glorious that such a plan could
be effected with such amazing results.
III. Another thing that
disturbs me about Otis' methodology is his apparent total disregard
for general revelation. Closely tied to this, of course, is his
absolute commitment to a rigid view of sola scriptura. It is
distressing to me that one who claims to want to exalt the glory of
God seems to almost totally disregard the glory of God manifested in
His creation. As the Confession says, “the light of nature, and the
works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness,
wisdom, and power of God...” The study of the world that God made
is the study of general revelation. With the God-given powers of
observation and deduction, man observes nature, formulates theories,
makes hypotheses, draws conclusions. This is what we call science. We
can do science because we are made in God's image—endowed with
reason and intellect. Now I do believe that science, done well,
brings us closer to understanding God through understanding his
creation. Science done poorly may lead us in the other direction.
But Otis' tone in this book seems entirely dismissive of the
scientific endeavor.
If a Christian, pursuing high-level scientific
research (someone such as Francis Collins for instance), should
maintain that he sees God at work through evolution, Otis will accuse
this good man of being a “pseudo-scientist” and a “sinful
compromiser.”Again, he seems to suggest that all questions can be
answered by scripture alone. It seems clear to me, and I think it
seems clear to most thinking Christians, that the Bible was not given
in order to answer all questions, but, as the confession tells us,
gives us “that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is
necessary unto salvation.”
It seems to me that for
Otis, as for many I have known in Reformed circles, the concept of
sola scriptura is an often unexamined presupposition. It is
unexamined in the sense that, it seems to me, many of these brothers
have never realized that the Bible itself doesn't teach “sola
scriptura.” In other words, they have taken an unbiblical
presupposition as the starting point for their theology. (If anyone
knows where the Bible does teach “sola scriptura” please
let this writer know).
Otis
declares that scientific observation should not inform our
interpretation of Scripture. As an experiment in that method, (
sola
scriptura, no information from scientific observation) let us ask
how we might interpret this text: “That men may know from the
rising to the setting of the sun that there is no one besides Me. I
am the Lord, and there is no other,” (Isa. 45:6, cf Isa 59:19,
others). These verses indicate the sun rises and sets. We know, or at
least scientists tell us, that the Sun does not move in relation to
the earth—it does not literally rise in the east and set in the
west. Science has demonstrated that the earth revolves, giving the
appearance to those on earth that the sun is moving. In the ancient
world the “obvious” and “literal” reading of this scripture
would certainly seem to indicate the sun moves, and not the earth. Is
it now poor hermeneutics or a “sinful compromise” to allow our
knowledge of science to inform us that we should probably interpret
these verses in a non-literal fashion?
I do not consider myself a
theistic evolutionist. The Bible tells us that God created the
heavens and the earth. How God did it is not my concern. Nor was it
the concern of the ancient creeds which simply declare that God, the
Father almighty, is “maker of heaven and earth and of all things,
visible and invisible.”
It is a sad thing to see
and taste the continual bitter fruit of brother warring against
brother. It is sad to see the continued disunity of the church when
our Lord prays for its unity. It is discouraging and distressing to
see an old friend using his talents and gifts to perpetuate the
protestant schism, rather than to heal that breach. I pray that he
might return to the Christ-centered focus of the scripture, the
ancient creeds, and the ancient church, and that he will leave behind
this war about the opinions of the theologians of the Westminster
Assembly.