You may not be aware of the complete meltdown going on at BioLogos, but yesterday’s post from Darrel Falk, “On Living in the Middle,” undercuts that organization’s claim to hold to historic Christianity. What started as a complaint against the critics of BioLogos, ended with a departure from the tenets of the Christian faith.
It was already clear where Dr. Falk and BioLogos stood on young earth creationism—they reject creation by divine fiat in six, literal, 24-hour days. But his article goes further. Falk, BioLogos, and many of its contributors also deny the special creation of the literal, historical Adam and Eve. Living in the middle? Middle of what?
Apparently they regard belief in a literal Adam as untenable, unbelievable, and incapable of survival in today’s scientific world. I guess they would apply that to other “Adam” references as well—the historical record of Adam’s creation (Genesis 1 and 2), his fall into sin (Gen. 3), his becoming a parent (Gen. 4 and 5), and any genealogical references to Adam (1 Chronicles 1:1; Luke 3:38; Jude 14). Further, if they’re going to be consistent with evolutionary science, they’ll have to abandon any fundamental doctrines that regard Adam as a literal and historical person too (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; 1 Timothy 2:13, 14).
Falk and BioLogos devotees are in danger of denying original sin, if they haven’t already. Start pulling the thread of original sin and the whole fabric of Christian theology unravels. After all, if Adam’s one sin really didn’t lead to condemnation for all men, then why should anyone believe Jesus Christ’s one act of righteousness will lead to justification for all men (Romans 5:18)? That’s Phil Johnson’s point in this post. I hope they listen.
Falk, and others like him, have clearly “strayed from the faith.” That was precisely why Paul warned Timothy to avoid the “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20-21). So, how did that happen?
First of all, they abandoned the Bible. Science is the ultimate authority for the BioLogos crowd, not Scripture. Naturalistic science is the determinative force in their thinking; whenever the Bible says something different from the science, they interpret the Bible within the boundaries of evolutionary theory rather than the other way around. So they’ve sacrificed the literal, straightforward interpretation of Scripture, along with any meaningful doctrine of inerrancy, in order to keep in step with science.
Now that Dr. Falk has revealed his lack of biblical fidelity, I think BioLogos needs to reflect that in the “About Us” section of their website. The BioLogos Foundation claims to promote the Christian faith and affirm the Bible as the inspired Word of God. They say their goal is to promote dialogue, explore harmony, and eventually integrate science and Christianity, “allowing science and faith to co-exist peacefully.” Sounds serene, doesn’t it?
It’s not. What they call “peaceful co-existence” is overtly hostile. Falk writes, “BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize [the young earth creation] view from the Church.” Why? Because, “. . . we are diametrically opposed to [the view] . . . that Adam and Eve were created with apparent age . . . just as we are diametrically opposed to their untenable position that there has been no macroevolution.” If they had their way, they’d put an end to any scientific inquiry that didn’t embrace evolutionary presuppositions.
Others have traveled the middle road ahead of Dr. Falk and BioLogos, with disastrous results. Consider the nineteenth-century liberals—a step into the middle of the road means a step away from biblical fidelity. So, why do they take that step in the first place?
Academic respectability. Period. When they esteem the changing opinions of men (scientists) over the sure Word of God, it’s evident they fear man rather than God; they love the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
That’s sad, because “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). And “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). That lack of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge is evident in Dr. Falk’s desire to live in the middle road with his atheistic detractors.
Notice how Dr. Falk’s interaction with unbelievers fails to account for the effect of sin on their minds and wills. He complains that his atheist detractors, like Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins, engage in “not fair practice” by misrepresenting his views. Falk believes they would never intentionally distort his positions, and he appeals to their sense of appropriateness and goodness to make it right before their audiences of thousands. That shouldn’t surprise him, but it seems to.
Falk seems to think Coyne, Dawkins, and other atheists are essentially good chaps who would really like Christians, if only they could know them better, if only they felt more welcomed by them. I think not. Those men, along with every other non-Christian, are committed to unbelieving presuppositions. Falk pretends his conversations with atheists take place on the neutral ground of scientific investigation, rather than the battleground of the human heart.
There is no neutrality in the unredeemed mind. We have all inherited a sin nature from our first parents, Adam and Eve—which, by the way, requires them to be literal people (just sayin’)—and we are born with a predisposition to distrust God and disobey His law. Apart from regeneration, the human mind is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7), suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18), and loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
So, neutrality is a total myth. Unbelievers, to the very core of their being, are devoted to unbelieving presuppositions. They will always engage in intellectual rebellion. They sit on the thrones of their minds as lords of their own realities. They glory in their supposed autonomy and they are unwilling to relinquish it. Falk and BioLogos think they’ll overcome that hostility by providing good dialogue, practicing respectable science, and being nice? Not on your life.
The natural world truly is the common ground we share with unbelievers, but we must always remember it is God’s ground. God created the ground on which we all stand, ordered the natural laws to keep us all standing there, and stamped His image on us. God gave us reason and curiosity to recognize Him through what He made (Romans 1:19-20); He wrote His law on our hearts and gave us a conscience to convict us (Romans 2:14-15). Like Paul in Acts 17, we need to preach the biblical storyline—God is the Creator of everything (Acts 17:24), we all descended from Adam (Actrs 17:26), and we all need to repent in view of coming judgment by the resurrected Christ (Acts 17:30-31).
Dr. Falk, The BioLogos Foundation, and old-earthers surrender the only common ground that exists. They’ve departed from Scripture, and by preferring the middle ground, they’ve become comfortable in the enemy’s camp. Long ages of death before Adam, no literal Adam, death not a consequence of Adam’s Fall—call it what you want, but that’s not the Christian faith.
So, I stand by what I said. Rather than avoiding “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called,” they have professed it and have strayed concerning the faith (1 Timothy 6:20-21). As Dr. Falk and The BioLogos Foundation have illustrated, living in the middle means watching your Christian faith wither away, dying in the middle.
Director of Internet Ministry