Book Review: Is it sin to believe in Theistic Evolution?

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.