Return to Syllabus
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
We must now speak of the creation of man,
not merely because he, among all the works of God,
is the most notable example of
the Creator's justice, wisdom, and goodness,
but because, as we have already said,
we can have no clear and real knowledge of God
without some corresponding knowledge of ourselves.
John Calvin (1509-1564)
As we move to another section of theology it is important to remind ourselves again of the order of our study. It is not without significance that we just come to the study of man at this point. First place and first attention must be given to the Creator; then we may consider his creatures--in this case man.
Part of the human condition is the tendency to put oneself at the center of things. Whether this be for philosophical or pragmatic reasons it is erroneous from the perspective of biblical Christianity. This tendency is reflected in the words of Rabbi J. L. Liebmann; "The religion of the future, for the first time, may become a partnership religion in which men will not only say but will feel, that they are indispensable to God." [i] As Forell notes, "It is hard for modern man to remember that God is independent of us and not a democratic leader subject to re-election. He is absolute Lord with absolute power." [ii] The biblical view is theocentric not anthropocentric.
If our theology of man is to be scriptural it must consider both man's dignity and his depravity; his creation in the image of God and his fall into the destructiveness of sin. "The Bible clearly affirms the grandeur as well as the misery of man." [iii] Without biblical perspective, however, man’s assessment of himself is hopelessly skewed. Life becomes "the tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or, as Bertrand Russell put it,
That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hop. to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. [iv]
It is true that man is desperately lost in sin (although it is not this that Russell has in mind), but at the same time he continues to be of infinite worth in God's sight as seen in the incarnation and atonement.
In the classical period men viewed themselves as primarily irrational. The mind was seen to be immortal and the body was evil. Medieval man saw himself as fallen but not totally depraved. The reformers, returning to the biblical view, taught that man had been created by God, fell into sin and became totally depraved, and was now the object of God's offer of salvation through the gospel of grace. Modern man, strongly influenced by humanism, views himself as the product of evolutionary forces. As a corollary to this, he has rejected, for the most part, any doctrine of sin as affecting the human personality. The result is a disorientation regarding the true meaning of humanity and its condition, on the one hand, and deity, on the other. This disorientation is first seen as we consider the question of man's origin.
Many fiat creationists insist on a relatively recent origin for man. Some even try to follow the genealogical tables of I Genesis 4-5 on a strictly straight-line basis (overlooking the fact that they are genealogies, not chronologies). Most, however, reject the Ussher method of dating and leave the question more open. For example, after an extended discussion (eighteen pages) on the antiquity of man Buswell states, “It is my conviction that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 we have largely to do with families as dynasties. But there are individuals in the record, too." [v] This does not mean, however, that the date can be pushed indefinitely backwards. [vi]
On the other hand, evolutionists of all kinds, including theistic evolutionists, seem to demand vast periods of time. Dale Moody, for example, states, "It may be that all men have descended from a primal pair, but it matters not if that was 20,000,000 years ago or more recently." [vii] One of the primary pillars of this call for large amounts of time is the uniformitarian approach to fossil dating. This scheme of dating is often presented as though it were incontrovertible fact based upon unimpeachable evidence.
After an extended discussion of the tenuousness of the conclusions reached by geologists from the fossil record in which he quotes repeatedly from proponents of these very views (pp. 206-214) Henry notes, "The circular nature of the scientific disposition to date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils is acknowledged by J. E. O'Rourke..." He then observes, "Since the comprehensive theory of evolution and in fact all scientific theory presumably labors under similar difficulties, the outcome of all empirical theorizing would seem to be either a total blank or a myth." [viii]
While it is felt that an exact time for man's origin cannot be determined, it would seem that these two extremes are open to serious question. Even evolutionists themselves have great divergences of opinion about the age of man. Richard Leakey suggests that the Homo line is five to eight million years old while Donald Johanson holds to two or three million years. Much more modestly, "the Yale paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam, contends that without a better fossil record and much new data conclusions must be very tentative. Pilbeam holds that the oldest securely dated modern humans go back only 40,000 years." [ix] Furthermore,
In a review of Origins (Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin), Pilbeam [x] candidly comments that the data base evolutionists now have maybe “too sparse, too slippery…to mold” a confident theory. He concludes that "the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans carne about." [xi]
While tenaciously clinging to evolution, Stephen Jay Gould admits that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." [xii] It would appear that a view that is in keeping with biblical data (allowing this to be the final criteria rather than the ever-changing musings of science) would require a relatively recent time for the creation of man.
Careful note must be given to the fact that the source of man's origin is an open question for the believer. The biblical, and therefore the only evangelical, position is divine creation. As to method, the question to be answered is, was it evolutionary or immediate? We must distinguish between evolution as a synonym for development (and that within divinely established boundaries) and evolution as a proper noun standing for a philosophical system which attempts to explain the presence of life on earth while attempting to relate all such life to one common (usually natural) origin. (The same distinction must be maintained between "science" and "scientism”. Science is "accumulated knowledge systematized and formulated ...with reference to the discovery of general truth and of the operation of general laws." Scientism is attitude which makes natural law the final arbiter and interpreter of all things.) As a proper noun, evolution may be defined as the theory that all life has developed from a single, simple cell through natural, uniform processes over numberless years.
There are four possible approaches to this issue with the second and third bearing close relationship to another.
i. Naturalistic evolution views origin and development, as the result of purely impersonal natural processes involving such things as natural selection, mutation and chance. Some hold that man emerged gradually and others that he appeared suddenly.
ii. Theistic evolution simply substitutes God (or some divine force) for the impersonal forces of the preceding view. He is immanent in the natural processes and man is the climax of this divinely supervised process.
iii. Progressive Creation (sometimes called threshold evolution) seeks to mitigate the purely immanental character of theistic evolution by introducing periodic transcendental interventions of God at strategic points in the process. Thus, while man's physical being may have evolved his distinctive "manness” was a direct creation by God.
iv. Fiat Creation holds, as Henry notes, that "all life-forms are created de novo by supernatural agency; no late orders of creation are dependent on earlier kinds of being; man is a totally unique creation fashioned from cosmic dust into a creature that bears his Maker's moral and rational image." [xiii]
This view holds that man ascended from the lower animals, body and soul, by a natural process controlled entirely by inherent forces. Life began spontaneously. Species came through natural law. Changes come primarily by mutation. It is a purely mechanistic and materialistic view. The basic differences between ape and man, for example, are speech, the use of symbols in writing, and possibly, the making of tools.
Several lines of evidence are advanced in support of evolution. Some of them are:
i. Comparative anatomy. It is claimed that since there is definite similarity between the anatomy of man and certain of the higher vertebrata there must be assumed a developmental line of continuity. This, however, is gratuitous since both live in a common environment with common physical life functions and needs. It is to be assumed that a common creator would equip them with similar anatomy to meet similar needs.
ii. Embryology. This is built around the biogenetic law "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," i.e., the idea that the fetus develops through the various stages of alleged evolutionary process from simple to complex. When the supposed similarities to simpler forms are examined carefully, however, more dissimilarities are found than similarities. Also, all of the later adult characteristics are found in the chromosomes of the first cell of the embryo which rules out chance in the process of development.
iii. Paleontology. It is assumed that life has progressed from the simple to the complex through the ages and that the older rocks contain the simpler forms while the younger rocks contain the more complex forms. Some of the problems with this are so-called "misplaced fossils" and the lack of transitional forms ("missing links"). Not only are there no links between man and ape but there are none between ape and the supposed ancestors of the ape.
As A. J. Kelso remarks, no fossil evidence indisputably links primates, the order in which evolutionists place man, with insectivores, their biologically indicated ancestors. [xiv] Both in the Old World and in the New, monkeys appear as novel species who have no intermediary fossil forms that link them to pre-simian ancestry. [xv] But even more significant is the disagreement among evolutionists in articulating the supposed connection between manlike forms and man as we know him. [xvi]
The evolutionary theory has many problems for which it has no solutions. Despite the several similarities between man and certain of the primates the differences are striking. As Henry comments,
If, indeed, man descended from manlike forms they must have been very different from any so-called hominids or primates now known to us. Man's biological singularity--his sustained upright walk, the coordinated use of his hands, his life span twice that of anthropoid apes, his manufacturing of tools, his dressing of himself and ornamentation of his body--all these aspects are too much ignored in the evolutionary intention to establish likeness to lower animals.[xvii]
Also with all its explanations, it does not account for the beginning of matter or force, and its greatest weakness is that it has no satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. While time and chance are frequently appealed to as solutions to the problem of origin they cannot be legitimately invoked for they are not causes.
Furthermore, chance is a broken reed on which the evolutionist relies. Following a highly technical discussion of scientific date Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen analyze the “chance” origin of life theory. They conclusively demonstrate the mathematical impossibility of “chance” origins. Their concluding words are, “It is apparent that ‘chance’ should be abandoned as an acceptable model for coding of the macromolecules essential in living systems. In fact, it has been, except in introductory tests and popularizations.” [xviii]
This system of thought leaves too much unanswered. Specifically, there are three insurmountable barriers which it has not and cannot overcome: 1) the gap between inanimate and animate objects; 2) the gap between animate and sentient objects; and 3) the gap between material and spiritual objects.
This view is in direct contradiction with the Word of God and is more philosophical than scientific in that it is the direct product of humanism holding that man is sufficient for all his needs. In fact, it often ends up being a faith-system as a substitute for faith in the God of creation. Having admitted the inadequacy of the "evolutionary ladder" approach Gould offers a rationalization for continuing to reject special creation and continuing to hold to evolution. He writes,
I suggest that the fault is not with evolution itself but with a false picture of its operation…. I want to argue that the "sudden" appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary changes within them is a proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. Evolution usually proceeds by "speciation"—the splitting of one lineage from parental stock—-not by the slow and steady transformation of these large parental stocks.[xix]
This has all the marks of special pleading and Henry characterizes it for what it is when he says, "This plea has all the earmarks of a secular faith concerning the origin of human life, an alternative faith to that of Darwin, yet one that also evades faith in a rational divine Creator." [xx]
Gould goes on to say, "We are not likely to detect the event of speciation itself. It happens too fast, in too small a group, isolated too far from the ancestral range." [xxi] This statement, in turn, provokes Henry to comment: “This is about as near to miracle as a non-supernaturalist can get; it sounds curiously like Genesis without God and with the postulation of a hominid substitute for the dust into which God breathed the breath of life." [xxii]
There are varying degrees of this type of evolution. Some views would be better designated "deistic" since they hold that a supernatural agency created matter and the laws governing matter which resulted in life and all its concomitants without further supernatural intervention.
Theistic evolution, per se, says that supernatural agency was immanentally active in creation, while "threshold evolution" (and "progressive creationism") sees God in continuous intervention in the evolutionary process. This supernaturally superintended process brings life from the simple to the complex. It is an attempt to join philosophical evolution and special creation by bringing in God to bridge the gap between the organic and the inorganic, the rational and the irrational creation. [xxiii]
As to man, only his body is derived from the brute. God endowed him with a soul. Edward J. Carnell writes, "Man was made out of the dust by a special, ad extra, divine act with a body which is structurally similar to the higher vertebrata, and soul formed after the image and likeness of God." [xxiv] In a later work he says, "if God was pleased to breathe his image into a creature that had previously come from the dust, so be it. Scripture only requires us to say that the physical antecedent of man was not denoted man until God performed the miraculous act of divine inbreathing." [xxv] A similar viewpoint has been allowed in recent Roman Catholic thinking as well. Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis, wrote,
The teaching of the Church leaves the doctrine of evolution an open question, as long as it confines its speculations to development, from other living matter already in existence, of the human body. (That souls are immediately created by God is a view which the Catholic faith imposes on us.) [xxvi] [xxvii]
Note the contrasts which make these systems mutually exclusive: The biblical view of creation asserts
1) "that the creation of new kinds reached its climax and completion in the originally graded orders of being and life;
2) that fixed laws and limits govern the creation;
3) that the law of stability is now more fundamental in the apace-time universe than that of changing forms;
4) that man bears a permanent dignity and supremacy among the animals." [xxix]
The evolutionary theory asserts
1) a simply primal entity;
2) temporal origination and development;
3) progressive appearance of new capacities and forms by immanent activity.
In its purest form this theory rules out God, divine purpose providence, and man's essential uniqueness. Even when God is introduced, which brings an inherent contradiction to the whole concept, you still have done away with man's essential uniqueness and this in turn strikes at the very heart of revealed truth, namely, the incarnation of God in Christ which implies the permanent significance of human nature.
If “man” is a constantly evolving being then Christ would only qualify as a savior for those in whose likeness he was incarnated. This would disqualify all who preceded him and all who followed for they would be at a different point in evolutionary development. The biblical picture however, is that “man was created in the divine image implying a fixed human nature. This does not allow for subsequent tinkering or adjustments such as the adding of a soul.
If human nature is essentially changeless then the presupposition of preceding simple forms leading to complex forms and eventually to something which will supersede man, that is, the evolutionary view, is false. If the supernatural (the miraculous) is impossible, and if every effect results from some immediately preceding natural cause, then biblical miracles, including the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, are impossible. [xxx]
Actually, the Bible does not exclude anatomical and physical similarities between man and other creatures. The dissimilarity comes in the area of the spiritual nature, primarily. However, similarity is not identity, nor does it necessarily point to continuity.
The following items will be of little concern to the naturalistic evolutionist and even to some theists. Those theistic evolutionists who acknowledge biblical authority, however, need to i consider them carefully.
i. Introduction There are many passages of scripture which indicate that animals, man, and various human organs were created by God (see e.g., Neh. 9:6; Rev. 10:6; Isa. 17:7; Jer. 27:5; Acts 17:24-25; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6; Prove 20:12; Ps. 94:9). As Thiessen states, "The Scriptures taken literally give a reasonable explanation for the origin of man," [xxxi] and they do very straightforwardly speak of God creating man (Gen. 1:27, 5:1; .6:7; Deut. 4:32; Isa. 45:12; 1 Cor. 11:9; cf. Gen. 1:26; 2:22; 6:6; Ps. 100:3; 1 Tim. 2:13 for similar terms).
ii. Problems related to the direct creation of man's body.
· It was made of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). This cannot be an allegorical reference to an animal ancestry [xxxii] in light of Genesis 3:19 (cf., Eccles. 3:19-20) since men do not return to an animal state at death.
· If man's body was originally that of an animal it must have been rendered "not subject to death" in order to fall later (assuming the theistic evolutionary idea that animals did die prior to the Fall).
· Different kinds of flesh are distinguished in 1 Corinthians 15:39. Paul states, "All flesh is not the same flesh" and then proceeds to distinguish beasts, birds and fish from men.
· God created mankind from the beginning male and female (Gen. 1:27; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). If the body had been an ape's it would already have had sex.
· Eve's body was a special creation of God (Gen. 2:21-22). To acknowledge this and to deny she came for Adam is inconsistent and ridiculous. The uniqueness of this origin is also under scored in 1 Corinthians 11:8,12. It is clearly indicated that woman originally found her physical beginning from man (note the interchange of ek for dia) and then became the instrument for propagation of the race. Paul also unmistakably states that both Adam and Eve were created by God. It was the whole man and whole woman not just the immaterial part (1 Tim. 2:13) that he made.
A distinct, but related, problem for the evolutionist is how to account for the convenient emergence of two creatures of the opposite sex in such a timely way so as to allow for sexual propagation. "Evolutionary theories of human origin are embarrassed by the problem of Eve, since the appearance simultaneously of masculine and feminine forms of homo sapiens, whether gradually or suddenly, would be unbelievably improbable on evolutionary terms." [xxxiii]
iii. The problem related to man's creation in God's image. Genesis 1:26-27 speaks of God creating man (generic) in his image, not some part of man, such as the soul: Furthermore, the imago Dei marks mankind as absolutely distinct from all other lower orders of creation. He possesses what Henry calls an "ineradicable God-consciousness." "The imago involves moral and rational factors that link man alone to the realm of spirit, and that enable his formulation of general ideas and principles, capacity for propositional speech, sense of moral duty, awareness of history, and devotion to social and civilizational concerns." [xxxiv]
iv. The problem related to God's endowment of man with the principle of life. Genesis 2:7 declares that at that point in the creative work of God man became nephesh hayah ("a living soul"), that is, animate. The same terms are used of the brute creation in Genesis 1:21, 24 ("living creature"). Thus, there is a marked discontinuity between the brute and man (cf. "Job 33:4). [xxxv] Mankind was animated by the “breath of life" from God; the brute creation was animated in some unspecified way. Also, if man became man by having a human soul inserted into an animal body the body would have already been animate.
v. The problem related to man's fall into sin. The scriptures do not present man as beginning an ascent from the level of the brute, but rather Genesis 3 indicates the beginning of degeneration. [xxxvi]
The threefold occurrence of bara (created) in Genesis 1 seems to draw distinct boundaries between the major aspects of creation rather than allowing for transition from one to the other. A creative act was needed to move from nothing to the inanimate, that is to inorganic matter (v. 1); from the inanimate (inorganic matter) to the animate (organic life) (v. 21); and from organic life to human life (v. 27). This latter is of such importance there is further repetition of the verb to make a general statement regarding the creation of mankind, a specific statement that this was in the divine image, and a particular statement that the sexes were created as such by God.
Man's creation was preceded by divine counsel (Gen. 1:26). The plurals in verse 26 are to be understood as denoting inter-Godhead communion not counsel with angels (see Isa. 40:14).
The statement is "and God created man." This should be contrasted with Genesis 1:11, 20, 24 which point to the beginning of a process within specified boundaries ("after its kind"), while I with man we begin with a finished product. These statements in 1 Genesis 1:11, 20, 24 are not to be understood as describing earth-originated acts since these things happen at God's command. Also, it should be noted from the narrative following Genesis 2:7 that man originally was neither inarticulate (2:19-20, 23); primitive, (2:15); amoral (2:16-17); unintelligent (2:19-20, 23;); nor without capacity for true religious experience (3:8- 10) .
Man is distinguished from the lower creatures by being created after a divine type (Gen. 1:26-27). Note the statement in Genesis 2:7 “breathed… the breath of life,” which is true of mankind, only.
Man is given dominion over the rest of the natural creation (Gen. 1:26, 28; Ps. 8:5-8; see also Gen. 2:19-20 which indicates the marked gap between man and beast).
Man's creation is the climax of creation week.
In Genesis 1:26-28 the fact of man's creation is noted and he is set forth as the crown of creation. In Genesis 2:7 the process of creation is stated and he is seen as the starting point of history. Thus, instead of two contradictory accounts from various sources we have complementary accounts from one source—Moses, as given by revelation from God.
The biblical basis for male/female roles and relations grows out of the creation account. There is inequality in order (man was created first, then woman), derivation (woman from man) and relationship (woman was created for the man's sake as a helper to him). Thus, women are to be submissive in home and church for administrative reasons based upon God's creative work. At the same time, there is equality in human dignity, since both are imago Dei, and in spiritual standing, since both are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Thus, opportunities for personal development are rightly the property of both men and women to the extent that they do not compromise upon God-ordained roles in home and church.
By way of conclusion to this section we must call ourselves to humility regarding some of the preceding issues and to caution ourselves about unwarranted dogmatism where scripture is silent. Some matters are clearly set forth in the Bible and if one is to be biblical he need not draw back from forthright statement regarding those things. "If the scientist cannot be sure of the facts because these seem constantly to change, the theologian must be no less alert to the distinction between expository opinion and revelationally assured data." [xxxvii]
One of the underlying principles of biblical teaching is the unity and solidarity of the human race. There is not only individual but also corporate privilege and accountability arising from membership in the race (see further discussion in Chapter 26). John Donne eloquently captured this truth when he wrote:
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a man or of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. [xxxviii]
We are a common species with a common parent and a common origin.
The statement, "male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27) "implies that the idea of man is incomplete, if either the male or female be considered by itself, in isolation from the other. The two together constitute the human species. A solitary male or female individual would not be the species man, nor include it, nor propagate it." [xxxix]
Evidence points to a common origin and ancestry in central Asia. The records of the migrations of man seem to indicate that there has been a distribution from a single center.
Comparative philology points to a common origin of the more important languages. Thiessen states, "There is evidence for uniformity of language with regard to phonology, grammatical structure, and vocabulary. This would mitigate against a plurality of origins, ‘while the case for a single beginning seems fairly strong.’ [xl]” Roucek writes, ‘Scholars speculate that most languages originated in one universal parent language.’ [xli]” [xlii]
The souls of all men, with their inherent properties are essentially the same. All have the same instincts, passions, mental and moral characteristics.
The common judgment of comparative physiologists is that the human race constitutes a single species. "Science does not positively assert that the human race descended from a single pair, but nevertheless demonstrates that this may have been the case and probably is." [xliii]
[i] J. L. Liebmann, Peace of Mind, p. 173
[ii] Forell, The Protestant Faith, p. 146
[iii] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I, 88
[iv] Bertrand Russell, Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell, p. 3
[v] J. O. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, I, 341
[vi] See Zimmerman, p. 161-66; Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 240-41; Whitcomb and Morris, Genesis Flood, pp. 474-89.
[vii] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, p. 172
[viii] C. F. Henry, Carl F. H. Henry, Revelation and Authority, VI, 214
[ix] Ibid., p. 209
[x] David Pilbeam, American Scientist, pp. 378f
[xi] Henry, op. cit., p. 211
[xii] Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, 86, 14
[xiii] Henry, op. cit., p. 205
[xiv] A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, p. 142
[xv] Ibid. pp. 150f
[xvi] Henry, op. cit., p. 208
[xvii] Ibid., p. 203
[xviii] Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, pp. 145-146
[xix] Steven J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 59
[xx] Henry, op. cit., p. 210
[xxi] Gould, op. cit., p. 62
[xxii] Henry, op. cit., p. 21. For an excellent treatment of the matter from a creationist viewpoint by a qualified scientist see Klotz, Genes, Genesis and Evolution, chapters 5, 9, 12 esp.
[xxiii] See Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 391-97, 465-72
[xxiv] Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 238
[xxv] Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 95
[xxvi] Pope Pius XII, The Church Teaches, edited by John F. Clarkson, et al, p. 154
[xxvii] See also L. Harold DeWolf, Theology of the Living Church, pp. 142-48, for another advocate of this view.
[xxviii] C. F. H. Henry, editor, “Science and Religion,” Contemporary Evangelical Thought, p. 251
[xxix] Ibid., p. 256
[xxx] See C. F. H. Henry, "The Bible and Modern Science" in Holman Study Bible, pp. 1187 ff
[xxxi] H. C. Thiessen, Lectures In Systematic Theology, revised, p. 153
[xxxii] As e.g., DeWolf, op. cit. p. 148
[xxxiii] Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, VI, 240
[xxxiv] (Ibid., p. 203
[xxxv] Also, see J. B. Payne, "Theistic Evolution and the Hebrew of Genesis 1-2," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Spring, 1965, pp. 85-90.
[xxxvi] See P. Zimmerman, editor, Darwin, Evolution and Creation, pp. 105-41; Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith; A. E. Wilder Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny for more extended discussion of these and related issues.
[xxxvii] Henry, op. cit., p. 227
[xxxviii] John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, pp. 108-09
[xxxix] William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, 4
[xl] Morris Swadesh, The Origin and Diversity of Language, p. 215
[xli] [Joseph S. Roucek, The Study of Foreign Languages, 7]
[xlii] Thiessen, op. cit., p. 159
[xliii] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 189
Return to Syllabus
Copyright © 2007 by
and the authors. All rights reserved.