Evangelicals versus Biologos

In the past months several prominent evangelicals have raised concerns about the Biologos blog.

One of these is Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who describes himself as a Calvinist. In a recent speech (transcript) Al Mohler defends the traditional reading of Genesis 1-11--including 6-day creation and an historical Adam--and opposes the promotion of evolution by Biologos. Mohler singles out Karl Giberson and Pete Enns for denying the historicity of Adam and the inerrancy of the Bible.


Another is John MacArthur, another self-proclaimed Calvinist Baptist, president of The Master's College. His Grace To You blog has numerous posts and speeches defending the traditional view of Genesis 1-11. Pastor Phil Johnson, an associate of MacArthur, explicitly addresses Biologos in his Pyromaniacs blog. Johnson writes:

Lately, BioLogos has consigned biblical inerrancy to the dustbin of outmoded ideas, alongside creation ex nihilo. They have been floating multiple alternatives to the historicity of Adam and Eve:
•Peter Enns: "The Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel's beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero."
•Alister McGrath (summarized in the words of the BioLogos editorial staff): "It makes even more sense to say that Adam and Eve are stereotypical figures—represent [sic] human potential as created by God but also with the capacity to go wrong."
•N. T. Wright: "I do think it matters that something like a primal pair getting it wrong did happen. But that doesn't mean I'm saying that therefore Genesis is kind of positivist, literal, clunky history over against myth. Far from it."

And so on. Of course BioLogos's creators and contributors don't believe in a global flood, either. So creation, the fall, the curse, and the flood all ultimately fall victim to BioLogos's skeptical, rationalistic, modernistic approach to "harmonizing science and religion." The original promise (in the words of BioLogos contributor Tim Keller)—"that biological evolution and biblical orthodoxy can be compatible"—turns out to be a lie. "Biblical orthodoxy" has no clear meaning in the BioLogos lexicon. In all candor, it seems as if sound doctrine is simply not matter of major concern for most BioLogos contributors.

It is commendable that Mohler and Macarthur take a clear, firm stance on the Bible as it relates to origins.

Disappointingly, John Piper, a third prominent Calvinist baptist, waffles on Genesis. In a recent Desiring God blog, entitled "What should we teach about creation?", Piper defends a direct creation of Adam--from dust-- at most 15,000 years ago but expresses an openness to the earth being billions of years old. Piper notes that he follows the views of John Sailhamer, who argues that the six creation days refer only to the preparation of the promised land and could be symbolic. According to Piper, this position has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young.

Aside from the problems with Sailhamer's position (here is one critique), this is an untenable compromise. For example, if Piper wants to appease naturalist science, what is he to do with its claims that aborigines have lived contunously in Australia for the last 45,000 years and that human-look-a-likes existed a million years earlier?

Piper's wishy-washy take on Genesis is particularly regretful given that he has written many excellent Christian books and has a very influential ministry. Hopefully Piper will reconsider.