Important New Post

Rachel Miller writing on Wes White’s Johannes Weslianus blog has written a scathing review of Dr. C. John (Jack) Collins latest attack on the Christian faith, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?  Dr. Collins, if you can believe it, is a professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary and attempts to harmonize theistic evolution and the biblical account of the historic Adam.  Miller does an excellent job explaining how Collins attempts this feat and why he fails.  Along the way she demonstrates that Collins is even at odds with the already deeply flawed PCA Creation Study Report.   Not only that but Collins was even on the committee that produced the Creation report.   Perhaps Collins just represents the next logical step for the PCA?   My guess is many of his students now making their way into administration positions and pulpits in the PCA might agree.

Explore posts in the same categories: Heresies

16 Comments on “Important New Post”

  1. hughmc5 Says:

    Charlton Heston (as Col George Taylor) kissing Kim Hunter (as Dr. Zira), “The Planet of the Apes,” 1968, 20th Cent. Fox.

  2. Sean Gerety Says:

    I thought it was biblical Christianity being wed to theistic evolution. I had no idea they made a movie about it? ;-P

  3. Rachel Says:

    Sean~ thanks. I’m glad the article was helpful for you.

  4. hughmc5 Says:

    Thank GOD for Dr Collins’ piece of work! Until now, we’ve labored in the dark, with nothing but Writ and the Holy Ghost to guide us.

    But now, we’re blessed to learn HOW TO READ GENESIS FOR ALL IT’S WORTH! Yippee!

    Secular (pagan) histories (as read by Collins, of course) provide the much-needed “context” for rightly interpreting Genesis. Aha!

    Subtitle: “In Search of an Historical Core,” or, “Stop Sweating the Symbolism.”

    “Imaginative elements”? In Genesis or Collins?

  5. Denson Dube Says:

    ” I had no idea they made a movie about it? ;-P”
    LOL, Sean, which planet are you from?
    “But now, we’re blessed to learn HOW TO READ GENESIS FOR ALL IT’S WORTH!”
    Who is your daddy?

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    “LOL, Sean, which planet are you from?”

    The Apes 🙂

  7. hughmc5 Says:

    Hello, 2D,

    “Yea, hath God said…?” That appears to be the spirit (‘daddy’) behind the doubters’ hermenuetic.

  8. Mike Says:

    I recently spent some time around a few Westminster seminarians who essentially let it be known that they either agree with or have no problem with those who hold to theistic evolution.

  9. Sean Gerety Says:

    I guess my suspicions were correct then Mike, even from cemeterians coming out of Westminster. More reason not go to seminary.

  10. hughmc5 Says:

    I appreciated my profs and experience at WTSCAL (now WSC) in the late 1990s, but I was well-prepared in having read numerous ‘Trinity Reviews,’ (G. Johnson’s common grace myth was innoculating), J.R.’s helpful Van Til man/ myth, The Clark Van Til Controversy, and Clark on saving faith.

    Believe it or not, A Christian View of Men and Things was either a prerequisite or strongly recommended reading in 1996.

    Sadly, John Frame was no longer using <Religion, Reason, and Revelation in his Christian Mind class. 😦

  11. MikeD Says:


    I listened to Christ the Center today on God’s Simplicity and the main speaker, James Dolezal, said that he had worked with Hugh McCann on a paper. Is that you?



    Please forgive me if you think this comment out of line or in poor taste. I thought I had Hugh’s email but I guess not. If you listen to the mp3 perhaps a good discussion would begin… just a thought.


  12. hughmc5 Says:


    That name is unfamiliar.

    I have written little, nothing published.

    Here I am: HUGHMC5 at HOTMAIL dot COM

  13. Hi there guys and gals,

    Is “theistic evolution” the same thing as “old earth creationism”?

    Excuse my ignorance, but to my mind, the two words “theistic” and “evolution” in one sentence….well they sound kind of odd.

  14. hughmc5 Says:

    John Robbins took on all who would (however unwittingly & with the best of intentions) denigrate the Bible’s testimony on creation:

    …The modern creationist movement began about 25 years ago with the publication of The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. The book was designed to defend the Genesis account of Noah’s flood as a worldwide flood. Moreover, it was designed to do so by citing evidence from geology, hydrology, and other scientific disciplines that is compatible with the Genesis account and difficult to explain on the basis of uniformitarian evolutionary development. The Genesis Flood was an interesting attempt to embarrass those scientists who denied catastrophism by marshalling the evidence that seemed to imply a worldwide catastrophe like the Genesis flood.

    But Messrs. Morris and Whitcomb never quite got the logical situation straight. They have never quite understood what proves what. And if this failure is embarrassing in high school geometry, it is absolutely fatal in theology. Morris’ and Whitcomb’s method seemed to imply that scientific evidence could prove the truth of Genesis. But at least Messrs. Morris and Whitcomb kept fairly close to the Scriptures and were concerned to defend the accuracy of the Biblical statements. Unfortunately, their very concern with Scripture is what obscured the irreparable flaws in their apologetic method. In the past ten years we have seen that incorrect method carried to its logical conclusion. That conclusion has been the transformation of Biblical creationism into scientific creationism.

    As the quotations from the scientific creationists that I have already read demonstrate, Morris’ and Whitcomb’s early fidelity to the Scriptures has been jettisoned as the implications of their apologetic method have become more and more clear. The scientific creationists have declared their independence from the Bible. Scientific creationism does not necessarily involve “religious concepts, a creator or God, creation from nothing, catastrophism, a worldwide flood, the recent inception of life, or ‘kinds’ of plants or animals.” Science is capable of discovering truth, according to these men. One need not start with the Bible at all. This is one of the most prevalent superstitions of the twentieth century.

    The development of the sort of non-scriptural, even anti-scriptural, scientific creationism that we have been discussing is a logically inevitable result of the belief that science is not a handmaiden to theology, but an independent enterprise that can prove some vague notion of creation. It can not. Science cannot prove anything, let alone prove creation. But it is this blind faith in science as a cognitive enterprise that explains why the meaning of “creation” has changed in the last ten years and is now quite different from religious views of past centuries…

    “The Hoax of Scientific Creationism,” 1987

  15. Hugh McCann Says:

    But, Sean, the New York Times has proven evolution in New York!

    ‘Evolution Right Under Our Noses’

    …Dr. Munshi-South and two graduate students, Paolo Cocco and Stephen Harris, climbed out of the 168th Street station lugging backpacks and a plastic crate full of scales, Ziploc bags, clipboards, rulers and tarps. They walked east to the entrance of Highbridge Park…

    White-footed mice, stranded on isolated urban islands, are evolving to adapt to urban stress. Fish in the Hudson have evolved to cope with poisons in the water. Native ants find refuge in the median strips on Broadway. And more familiar urban organisms, like bedbugs, rats and bacteria, also mutate and change in response to the pressures of the metropolis. In short, the process of evolution is responding to New York and other cities the way it has responded to countless environmental changes over the past few billion years. Life adapts…

    Evolution is one of life’s constants. New species emerge; old ones become extinct. Environmental changes have often steered evolution in new directions. And modern cities like New York have brought particularly swift changes to the environment…

    New York, in other words, is an evolutionary experiment — one that some scientists find fascinating to observe. “It’s some new thing emerging around us,” Dr. Dunn said.Now THAT, we already knew!

  16. Joe Says:

    Does this mean I have to resign from the Flat Earth Society?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: