Dear Editor,
I found the article ‘It is essential…’ in EN April 2014 by Ranald Macaulay to be very encouraging.
He reminds us of what Lloyd-Jones and Schaeffer said about the scientific interpretation of Genesis 1-3. This is so refreshing and relevant to the sad debate that evangelical scholars (who should know better) are having at present – namely discussing whether Adam was a real individual or not.
Ranald clearly brings out that Lloyd-Jones and Schaeffer were immovable on this matter. Though it is true that we owe so much to John Stott’s clear teaching on the necessity of the new birth and his clear writings on the atonement, it seems that though he initially was firm on Genesis, later in life, he was influenced by the theistic evolutionist view that God chose some ape-like creatures (Homo Divinus?) and breathed into them the breath of life.
This shows that even the best and most able teachers are not immune to error. We do well to heed Macaulay’s call here to see that there are cardinal truths concerning the his-toricity of Genesis which we must stand by or else, as Schaeffer and Lloyd-Jones show, it will undermine the gospel itself.
I would encourage readers to get hold of the book, Should Christians embrace evolution? (IVP 2009), which cogently argues both from Scripture and science that evangelicals must hold to the historical truth of Genesis 1-3.
To try and suggest that Genesis is not literal leads to an open door for the sceptic to challenge our consistency. They often can see very quickly the connections to the gospel and the death and resurrection of Christ. Many young converts are very much strengthened in the faith when they understand that those with experience in science are committed to a biblical world view. I also would encourage CUs and UCCF groups to be willing to engage on the issue more openly, since this can be very fruitful in reaching sceptics on our campuses.
Yours in Christ
