Answers in Genesis has a Whistle, and no one is to stone anyone until they blow it (Part 2 of my look at Calvin Smith’s attack of BioLogos as a “House of Heresy”…yes, he’s blowing the whistle)

Last week, Calvin Smith at Answers in Genesis wrote an online article entitled, “BioLogos: House of Heresy and False Teaching, Part 1,” in which he lambasted the BioLogos organization for spreading heresy and false teaching. Earlier this week, I wrote my own post on Smith’s invective. Well, he has now come out with “Part 2” of his series, so I feel it fitting to come out with yet another reaction. Part 2 is a much lengthier attack on BioLogos. Whereas Part 1 was 2,200 words, Part 2 is a whopping 7,200 words. I’m going to do my best to provide a brief overview and critique of Part 2 here in this post. I also am planning to write my own Part 3 to summarize my thoughts on, not just Smith’s articles, but also AiG, BioLogos, and the creation/evolution debate as it now stands.

First, let’s begin with some fun. I know what you’re all thinking: “What is Willie Wonka’s reaction to Smith’s article?” Well…

Smith’s Focus on BioLogos’ take on Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood
The focus of Smith’s Part 2 is specifically on the way BioLogos goes about addressing the biblical account of Creation (Genesis 1), Adam and Eve (Genesis 2-3), and Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6-9), and how all that supposedly “contradicts” what the Bible clearly says. So how does Smith present BioLogos’ “position” on these topics? Let’s see…

Concerning creation, Smith says that BioLogos holds to a “secular understanding” of origins and to the “story” of evolution and doesn’t see Genesis 1 as literal history. In addition, they have the gall to say that there is no conflict between science and Scripture! Of course, Smith claims that what BioLogos means by “science” is really just (you guessed it!) “secular evolutionist interpretations” of science, “with God somehow behind it all.” This, I find, quite telling about AiG (and other YECist organizations). In a nutshell, they do teach there is a conflict between science and Scripture. The irony, of course, is that AiG’s position is the exact same position as many prominent atheists who attack Christianity. Both groups work from the same assumptions. Both (1) read certain parts of Scripture (particularly Genesis 1-11) in a highly wooden, literalistic fashion, (2) treat the scientific theory of evolution as if it were a philosophical worldview, and then (3) voila! Conflict!

Concerning Adam and Eve, Smith says that BioLogos many contributors don’t think Adam and Eve were historical people, and thus are in conflict with what Smith calls the “traditional view,” namely that Adam and Eve were the first two people in history, created by God about 6,000 years ago, on the sixth day of the world’s existence. Smith then (again the irony) takes the side of atheist Richard Bozarth, who has said that if there wasn’t a historical Adam and Eve, then that must mean that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God, because he wouldn’t have saved anyone from their sins: “Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.”

Quite frankly, this line of thinking has always baffled me. Let me be as clear as possible. Just because I don’t think Adam and Eve were historical people, that doesn’t mean I don’t think people are sinful and in need of salvation. Genesis 3 is teaching us that human beings are sinful, that the story of Adam and Eve is our story—that’s who we are. It isn’t trying to tell us the pinpoint in history when the literal first sin happened, so that we can (kind of like Eve did) point our fingers and say, “The only reason I sinned is because it was Adam’s fault!”

Concerning Noah’s Flood, Smith says that contributors at BioLogos tend to either argue that Noah’s flood was a historical local flood or that it is a mythological story, and thus not historical at all. Well, that is true—that is what contributors tend to say about Genesis 6-9.

What Does Smith Say the New Testament Writers Say About These Things?
After summarizes the general views of BioLogos concerning creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah’s Flood, Smith then summarizes the New Testament passages that make reference to these three parts of Genesis 1-11 in an attempt to show that BioLogos is, in fact, flatly contradicting what the New Testament writers said about them.

…but BioLogos isn’t, because what Smith claims the New Testament writers were saying isn’t really what the New Testament writers were saying.

First things first, though. Smith quotes Mark 10:6-8 and Matthew 19:4-6, both of which allude to the fact that the Scriptures (Genesis 1-2) talk about the creation of Adam and Eve “from the beginning.” According to Smith, since Jesus said, “Have you not read?” that means he was emphasizing the “authority and historicity” of the Genesis account. Well, not so fast. Yes, Jesus was most certainly emphasizing the authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, but how does merely alluding to an Old Testament passage (like Genesis 1-2) automatically mean one is claiming it is a historical account? Sorry, mere reference to something doesn’t automatically mean one is asserting historicity. It is pure speculation to say that Jesus was affirming the historicity of Genesis 1-2, simply based on the fact that he made reference to Genesis 1-2. For the sake of argument, maybe he did—but there is no way you, or I, or anyone, can deduce that from what he says in Mark 10 and Matthew 19.

Second, what about Adam and Eve? Smith quotes Acts 17:26, Romans 5:12-21, and I Corinthians 15:1-22, all of which consist of the Apostle Paul making reference to Adam. In Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:1-22, in particular, Paul compares and contrasts Adam with Christ. Smith claims that since Paul references Adam and compares/contrast him with Christ, that therefore Adam must be historical—because Jesus was a historical person, and who in their right mind would ever compare a historical person with a literary figure?

Is that argument convincing to you? It doesn’t convince me. Again, mere allusion to a story does not automatically mean assertion of historicity. Again, for the sake of argument, maybe Paul did think Adam was a historical person—but there is no way you, or I, or anyone, can deduce that from what he says in these passages. And let me also say that I’ve read a number scholars and theologians (some contributors at BioLogos) who have said that these passages show that Paul really thought Adam was a historical person, but he was just wrong—I have to disagree for the same reason. I think that is too much speculation as to what “Paul was thinking about the issue of Adam’s historicity” when he made reference to Adam in these passages. Simply put, we don’t know what he was thinking about that issue either way. Those passages are not about that issue.

Finally, what about Noah’s flood? Smith quotes Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17: 26-30, II Peter 2:5, and Hebrews 11:7 and claims that by merely referencing Noah that the New Testament writers were definitively claiming that Genesis 6-9 is straightforward history. But again (sorry to sound like a broken record), mere allusion to a story does not automatically mean assertion of historicity.

So, Does BioLogos Teach and Embrace the Historical Christian Faith?
And so, after proving what amounts to nothing, Smith circles back to his original claim that BioLogos not only does not teach or embrace the historical Christian faith, but it actually teaches things contrary to the historical Christian faith…and is therefore a heretical organization that pushes false teaching.

The only problem (only???) is that what Smith says just doesn’t make sense. First, he says, “For BioLogos to claim any kind of orthodoxy in regards to Paul’s clear teaching in Romans 16:5–6, they would have to argue that Jesus and the Apostles (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) were teaching from an ‘evolutionary creation’ viewpoint.”

What does Romans 16:5-6 say, you ask? Let’s see: ^“Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia. Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.”

I am so confused! I fail to see how Paul’s greetings here contain any “clear teaching” regarding historical, orthodox Christian doctrine. This simply makes no sense. In addition, no one is claiming Jesus or the Apostles taught from an “evolutionary creation viewpoint! I’ve often seen this kind of “argument” from AiG and am simply mystified by it. Let me be as clear as possible: The Bible does not teach evolution. Jesus and the Apostles don’t teach evolution. No one is claiming that. What many at BioLogos (and I) are saying is that (1) sections like Genesis 1-11 are not teaching science or history to begin with, and (2) when the New Testament writers reference Genesis 1-11, they are doing it to make certain theological points, but at no time are they commenting on the question of their historicity—they simply aren’t doing that.

Or more simply put: The Bible isn’t “teaching” evolution OR young earth creationism either way. Therefore, because that is the case, it is okay to do modern science and accept what modern science has discovered about things like the geological column, fossils, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. None of that contradicts the Bible or the historical Christian faith, because neither the Bible nor the historical Christian faith address those scientific issues. So, despite Smith’s claim that BioLogos is “guilty of teaching contrary to what the NT writers taught—which is false teaching!”—the simple fact is that no, that’s not true. The NT writers were not commenting or teaching any scientific explanations regarding the creation of the material universe or the historicity of Adam and Eve or Noah’s flood.

Why Enns, Lamoureux, Giberson, Sparks, and Bankard are All Admitted False Teachers
The last major section of Smith’s article is devoted to some good old-fashioned stone-throwing against the likes of Peter Enns, Denis Lamoureux, Karl Giberson, Kenton Sparks, and Joseph Bankard. I want to save commenting on this last major section, as well as Smith’s conclusion, though, for my final installment analyzing his attack on BioLogos. I won’t be able to adequately assess both his comments about some of the statements by these men, as well as their statements themselves, without making this post impossibly long.

I will say one thing ahead of time about Smith’s final section and his conclusion. Although I find his attacks on these men to be both mean-spirited and, at the same time, absurdly funny, I do think many of their comments he highlights are problematic to a certain degree.

…but that’s why I’ll need another post to tease that out. Unlike Smith, I’ve never written a 7,500-word post and I have no intention of ever doing so! In addition, unlike Smith, if I’m going to comment on someone’s work, I want to at least try to put some thought into it, so that I don’t come across like this guy…

…and if you’ve seen the film, you know what happens to him!