Guest Post: Response to William Evans
June 4, 2012
Editors' Note: The following is a response to William Evans's recent reformation 21 article by Dr. William VanDoodewaard, who is associate professor of church history at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and an ordained minister in the ARP.
William Evans's latest piece on the ARP Synod via his links in the creation section and use of titles states:
Evans and I had a long behind the scenes discussion during the original exchange where I noted that my primary concern was the problem of evolutionary origins of Adam and Eve, and the theological implications of this, and pleading for him to work together on this -- a call I also made publicly. This was also clearly evident in my final reply to his posts in my "Defining Adam and Eve". Evans meanwhile stated that the theistic evolution of Adam and Eve, pre/co-hominds/part of a tribe was a legitimate position in the life of the church, a non-issue, so long as there was an Adam and an Eve. How the ARP Synod will respond to the Mississippi Valley memorial remains to be seen, but to me it is clearly worded, says what needs to be said, and is something that as stated pretty much everyone should be able to in good conscience agree upon. I trust the Lord will give wisdom, love and faithfulness, in this important discussion and decision.
William Evans's latest piece on the ARP Synod via his links in the creation section and use of titles states:
there apparently are some in the ARP who believe that those who do not hold to literal six-day young-earth creationism should "change, acquiesce, or depart honorably in conviction" (see my response here)The apparently some, is apparently me, as I wrote the article in the first link, which was titled "Hermeneutics and Awkward Science." Evans insinuates in his response "Unhappy Politics" (I hoped misunderstood, but private correspondence between us eliminated that possibility) this as an effort to remove from Presbyterian denominations ministers who do not hold to literal six-day young-earth creationism (accusing me of playing crass power politics), a drum he continues to beat in his most recent Ref21 article.
Evans and I had a long behind the scenes discussion during the original exchange where I noted that my primary concern was the problem of evolutionary origins of Adam and Eve, and the theological implications of this, and pleading for him to work together on this -- a call I also made publicly. This was also clearly evident in my final reply to his posts in my "Defining Adam and Eve". Evans meanwhile stated that the theistic evolution of Adam and Eve, pre/co-hominds/part of a tribe was a legitimate position in the life of the church, a non-issue, so long as there was an Adam and an Eve. How the ARP Synod will respond to the Mississippi Valley memorial remains to be seen, but to me it is clearly worded, says what needs to be said, and is something that as stated pretty much everyone should be able to in good conscience agree upon. I trust the Lord will give wisdom, love and faithfulness, in this important discussion and decision.
