Repent, Part 2: Emphasis on the Gospel?

Last week, I dealt with some of Biologos’ recent attempts to rebut the arguments contained within my articles (BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching, Part 1 & 2). Once again (before addressing another of their critiques), I would like to remind anyone following this particular “back and forth” between AiG and BioLogos of the key issues my original articles revealed in relation to identifying false teachers within the church and how those conclusions relate to BioLogos.

Why? Because I continue to see attempts to obfuscate the arguments as to why BioLogos is a false teaching organization with attempts to claim AiG is implying all theistic evolutionists aren’t truly saved—which is not stated or alluded to in the articles.

AiG has always been clear that salvation is not dependent on taking Genesis 1–11 as plainly written. As we have pointed out countless times in articles and public presentations, we all likely know many wonderful born-again believers who believe God used evolution to create.

What my articles dealt with primarily is (1) defining false teachers; and (2) whether BioLogos fits those criteria. Other arguments are distractions away from this point.

So, again, here are the four points in relation to the biblical definition and commanded response to “false teachers” laid out in Scripture—and in relation to the BioLogos organization.

A Biblical Acknowledgment of, and Criterion for, Identifying False Teachers

1. The Bible makes it clear that false teachers will be among the church, causing division and strife.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies . . . .  (2 Peter 2:1)

2. Anyone who teaches in direct contradiction to Scripture is a false teacher. Although identifying a false teacher may be difficult in some cases, it is self-evident that anyone admitting to teaching something contrary to what the authors of Scripture wrote is by definition a false teacher.

That is, if a professing Christian admits that the authors of Scripture were teaching a specific concept/belief but declares that the biblical author was wrong, then that individual is a false teacher. After all, Scripture is ultimately God’s Word, so declaring any part of what Scripture teaches to be wrong is ultimately saying that God is wrong.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . . .  (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

3. Scripture makes it clear that Christians should identify and disassociate with false teachers:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him. (Titus 3:10)

4. Several BioLogos contributors are clearly guilty as charged (above) and have declared the authors of Scripture clearly believed certain things that we know today to be incorrect/wrong (see several examples in my second article). BioLogos (as a group) has platformed these people and not identified them as false teachers, continuing to collaborate with them in many cases. Therefore, BioLogos is a false-teaching organization.

So, until these charges against them can be refuted, my accusation against them stands. And as my first response to their arguments demonstrated, they haven’t even come close to doing so.

[Again, larger sections from my original articles are designated “OA” to make it easier for readers to follow.]

BioLogos’ Arguments

Last week I responded to two out of three of the main arguments presented on the BioLogos online forum by moderator Christy Hemphill on a thread titled, “BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching (AiG says the nicest things about us).”

In the post, she stated that (1) AiG uses quote-mining tactics; (2) BioLogos’ association with certain contributors of theirs doesn’t mean BioLogos’ affirmation of those contributors’ beliefs; and (3) AiG‘s accusation that BioLogos doesn’t emphasize/explain the gospel in detail is invalid.

To see my refutation of the first two points, please visit “Repent: A Response to BioLogos’ Critique of ‘BioLogos: House of Heresy & False Teaching’, Part 1: Quote Mining and Associations.”

This leads us to her third argument: that AiG falsely accuses BioLogos of not emphasizing and explaining the gospel. What you will see is that in researching this third point, I discovered even more support in defense of my original article’s claims: BioLogos is truly a false-teaching organization.

“We Do Emphasize and Explain the Gospel!”

As to the claim by Hemphill that BioLogos supposedly emphasizes and explains the gospel on their website, as mentioned last week—to put it simply—no. No, they don’t.

Hemphill says;

“AIG says: ‘In contrast, an extensive search on the BioLogos website reveals they do not emphasize or explain the gospel in any detail.’

Something tells me maybe not so extensive.”

She also touts BioLogos’ supposed emphasis of the gospel by showcasing one of her own articles (which I’ll get to a little later). Let’s examine her claim.

What Is the Gospel?

Firstly, before we examine whether BioLogos emphasizes or explains the gospel, let’s answer the question, “What is the gospel?” Simply mentioning the word “gospel” in an article or presentation isn’t necessarily doing either of those things (emphasizing or explaining).

And while many might be satisfied with a simple declaration to the effect of, “Jesus saves us from our sin,” that is a rather shallow and truncated summation of the gospel (often based on the assumption the listener acknowledges many other things Scripture clearly teaches).

The fact is, professing Christians (especially BioLogos) often veer so far away from an understanding and belief in the biblical gospel that the word can represent a wide variety of meanings unrelated to its scriptural moorings.

As I pointed out in the second of my original articles, many BioLogos contributors have stated they have actively sought to redefine the meaning of the gospel because of their evolutionary beliefs, such as about death and disease (i.e., the physical results of sin) supposedly having been present from the beginning (prior to Adam sinning) and the fact that many of them do not believe in a historical Adam whatsoever. Both of these beliefs cause catastrophic damage to the biblical gospel message.

This is why (among many other quotes) I included the following section from my second article (below) highlighting Karl Giberson, who has been a major contributor to BioLogos from its inception (having co-written the book The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions with Francis Collins, which is still available on BioLogos’ website).

OA:

In his book Saving the Original Sinner, Giberson admits that the Bible describes Adam and Eve as historical figures, the fall as a real event, and so forth, yet he also explains why he teaches evolutionary science:

"[G]enetic evidence has made it clear that Adam and Eve cannot have been historical figures, at least as described in the Bible. More scientifically informed evangelicals within the conservative traditions are admitting that the evidence is undermining creation, fall, redemption theology."

It’s no wonder then that Giberson references Ian Barbour as a major influence in his and BioLogos’s attempt to “reconcile” science and religion. An endnote on one of his articles says,

"All such conversations take the seminal work of Ian Barbour as the starting point. Barbour—arguably the first true scholar of science-and-religion—identified four ways that science and religion could relate. His analysis first appeared in 1988 and was expanded in 1990 with his influential Gifford lectures."

What then is Barbour’s opinion on these matters?

"You simply can’t any longer say as traditional Christians that death was God’s punishment for sin. Death was around long before human beings. Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world. . . .  One generation has to die for new generations to come into being. In a way, it is more satisfying . . . .  than to see it as a sort of arbitrary punishment that God imposed on our primeval paradise."

And understand, Giberson has revealed his adoption of Barbour’s position wholeheartedly. He references his pushback from the evangelical community because of his attempt to redefine biblical terms to make them fit the story of evolution:

"I suggested that what is labeled theologically as sin remains a useful insight into human nature, even after we abandon a historical Adam, his fall, and the original sin he passed on to us. . . .  The story of Adam is thus the story of Everyman, unable to resist temptation, ignoring the better angels of his nature.

Adam and Eve, as described in Genesis, cannot have been historical figures. Recent work in genetics has established this unsettling conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt."

BioLogos paints itself as “embracing traditional Christianity” while embracing major influencers like Barbour and Giberson, who contradict the church and God’s Word. They are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This is why I quoted Scripture extensively in my original articles—so that a biblical understanding of the gospel would be made clear in contrast to BioLogos’ teaching. Here is another portion:

OA:

Paul again emphasizes the reality of Adam as a real person in Romans 5:12–21, where he explains that Adam and Jesus constitute two heads of humanity: the first and last Adam.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12–21)

The “one man” to whom Paul refers is absolutely clear each time he mentions it because of the context (either Adam or Jesus). Death (both physical and spiritual) came because of one man’s (Adam’s) sin, but life came through one man’s (Jesus Christ’s) sacrifice.

And Adam as a real person is similarly critical to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15, where he defends the physical resurrection of the dead (i.e., because we believers are in Christ, we will also rise in Christ).

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:1–22)

Notice the linking of the gospel Paul preached to the reality of the resurrection from a physical death—and where that state of death came from in the first place: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” This reiterates Romans 5:12: death came by one man, Adam, but Christ’s sacrifice brings life.

Some may want to limit “the gospel” to punctuated areas of Scripture, such as 1 Corinthians 15:3–4:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

However, we can clearly see that a complete gospel declaration/explanation not only contains the “good’ news” that sin and death can be overcome because of Christ’s sacrifice, but also the bad news—an understanding of where sin and death came from in the first place.

As quoted above, Paul “bookends” his explanation of the gospel he preached to the Corinthians (reminding them of what he had taught previously) in 1 Corinthians 15:1 and 15:22 this way:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:1, 22)

Again, just to make it crystal clear, the gospel Paul preached is summarized with the inclusion of the historical narrative in Genesis: in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Defining Death

As seen, a major component of Paul’s argument regarding the gospel includes the concept of death, and its origin.

Biblically, its origin is unquestionable: death came into the world because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). But some (like many in BioLogos) attempt to sidestep the power of this message by arguing about the biblical definition of death.

However, words are always defined within their context. Historically, most Christian theologians have understood that when the Bible says, for example, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), the word death used there actually carries two meanings: both physical and spiritual death.

Spiritual Death

The idiomatic use of the word dead as it relates to spiritual deadness (separation from God) is seen throughout Scripture, for example:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins . . . .  (Ephesians 2:1)

And Jesus refers to it (using different words) as the necessity for a man to be “born again” (John 3:3–7).

And we see how conversion to Christ changes the unregenerate from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive:

[W]hen we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved . . . .  (Ephesians 2:5)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Physical Death

Scripture is clear regarding the meaning of physical death (physical degeneration to the point of no life function, followed by decomposition). In listing some of the consequences of Adam’s rebellion, the Lord references Adam now having to work very hard:

[T]ill you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19)

Obviously, this is referring to the fact that Adam’s body would eventually stop functioning and decompose. However, note that this is followed by God discussing the possibility of Adam “living forever”:

Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever . . . .  (Genesis 3:22)

This obviously cannot refer to Adam living forever “spiritually” because, at this point, he is in a fallen sinful state in need of salvation (being made alive in Christ). Obviously, it is only because of Jesus’ coming sacrifice that atonement would be made possible, and the tree of life could not provide that.

It is apparent that God expelled our original parents from the Garden of Eden lest they eat of this tree of life and enter a most hideous state, that of becoming the “living dead:” physically alive and yet spiritually dead, separated from God.

The Genesis Understanding of Death

This whole comprehension of death has its roots (as do all Christian doctrines- directly or indirectly) in the creation account where God warned Adam that-

[B]ut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Genesis 2:17)

The Hebrew is, literally, “die-die” (muwth-muwth) with two different verb tenses (dying and die), which can be translated as “surely die” or “dying you shall die.” The Hebrew phrase translated in English is:

“Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat die (dying) die”

Bible translators primarily utilize two ways when translating a text: formal equivalence (“word-for-word”) and dynamic equivalence (“thought-for-thought”). If Genesis 2:17 was translated word for word, it would be “dying die” or “die die,” which would be difficult for English readers to understand (as repetition of a word doesn’t typically change the emphasis or meaning in English). This is why most translations rightly use more dynamic equivalence and say “surely die.”

If God had meant Adam and Eve were to die right then, the text should have simply used muwth (which means “dead, died, or die”) only once, and not beginning to die or surely die (as muwth-muwth is used in Hebrew).

So, Adam and Eve immediately died spiritually (they were separated from God), while their bodies began to die physically and would eventually return to dust (Genesis 3:19).

Emphasizing the Gospel?

Now, let me demonstrate BioLogos’ lack of emphasis of the gospel with a very practical approach anyone can perform right from the BioLogos website, which claims they have “a comprehensive set of common questions, hundreds of articles, videos, and more . . .”1

One would imagine that with all that content, finding references to the gospel should be easy, correct? Well, I simply went to the BioLogos’ website and looked around for references to “the gospel” or “good news” on their front page.

There were none immediately apparent, but once into their “About” section, below their “Core Values” section, you can click their “What We Believe” link and discover the following points (the first four being the most related to the gospel):

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.

1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
2. We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
4. We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
5. We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
6. We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as “natural laws.” Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.
7. We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
8. We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
11. We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.

Now to many, the first four points may sound very orthodox in its presentation (people are sinners in need of salvation and we can be reconciled to God because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ), albeit somewhat strange surrounded by an emphasis on harmonizing “science” (read: the story of evolution) and Scripture.

Now to be fair, in a brief statement (given a common acceptance of what the gospel is among most born-again believers), the gospel-centric parts of the list would normally be considered sufficient for most Christian organizations/churches as a brief statement of faith, etc.

But as mentioned, because of how far BioLogos has veered from that common biblical understanding of the gospel, a much fuller explanation of the gospel by them would need to demonstrate that they emphasize and explain the gospel.

Search “Gospel”

As there was no deeper explanation of the gospel I could find looking though links on/from their front page, I then typed in keyword “gospel” in their search bar.2

Results? Out of hundreds, their search engine showed only nine hits. So much for an “emphasis” on the gospel. (As a comparison, just go to the Answers in Genesis website. Ours has a “Good NewsThe Bad News . . . and the Good News” button on our front page (in our “About” section), and a keyword search of “gospel” yields over 100 hits with articles and resources detailing a clear biblical understanding of the gospel as discussed above).

Explanation of the Gospel?

Of the nine that show up, I invite everyone to read the articles and watch the videos that appear for themselves and ask: Are these articles actually about the gospel, and if they mention it, do they explain it in any detail?

Here are the titles and their synopsis from the BioLogos website (below), with a brief commentary on each of them.

1. Caring for People and the Planet

As Christians, we have a call to care for the Earth and everything in it. Caring for creation is integral to loving our neighbors and bringing an authentic presentation of the gospel.

2. Why should Christians care for creation?

As bearers of God’s image, all people have the responsibility and privilege of caring for God’s creation.

I lumped these two together for brevity, as these first two are both dominated by talk of “creation care” (looking after the planet) and warning about climate change. There is no clear explanation of the gospel. An excerpt from the second one mentioning the gospel says:

Rational hope means taking the data seriously and accepting the enormity of the problems we’re facing, yet doing so with the hope of the Gospel firmly in view. This posture empowers bold action. Christians are uniquely poised to act. Think of the number of churches, missionaries, and aid organizations all over the world. If we saw creation care as a strategic priority for helping us to fulfill the Great Commission, we could see massive changes (see the Lausanne Movement statement). We live out the Gospel and show the love of Christ to the poor and vulnerable by meeting their basic needs (Matthew 25:40).

So is “the gospel” then considered performing “creation care” and meeting people’s physical needs? No mention of preaching the gospel is in either of these articles as per Romans 10:14:

And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

And there is no explanation of what the gospel actually is contained within them either.

3. Why Are There Multiple Accounts of Jesus’s Resurrection in the Bible?

Since no two people ever see things in exactly the same way, the complexity and variation of the Gospels, including the Resurrection accounts, ring true to life.

This is a fairly short article discussing the four Gospels’ accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. It does not explain the gospel and has some loose-sounding argumentation regarding the accuracy of Scripture, including this:

I am content with what the theologians of the early church called the Fourfold Gospel—four overlapping and coherent (though not quite harmonized) accounts of the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus (four chosen out of the multitudes of “gospels” that were available in the first centuries of Christianity).

By the way: most biblical theologians do not hold to the idea that there were “multitudes of gospels” from which four were somehow “chosen.” That line of thinking tends to come from more liberal theologians or outright apostates such as Bart Ehrman.

4. Essentials of Creation: A Response to The Gospel Coalition

Certain beliefs about creation are essential to Christian faith, but evolutionary science should be something about which Christians can legitimately disagree.

This is an example of many articles on BioLogos’ website that argue against a literal Adam and Eve because of evolutionary “science.” And as such, it does not explain the gospel. Rather, as mentioned previously about much of BioLogos’ content, it actually deconstructs the gospel by attempting to convince Christians there is no need to believe in the first Adam while declaring faith in the last Adam, Jesus. The article states,

Drawing a line that requires Christians to affirm a special creation of Adam and Eve carries a significant risk of driving away those who might otherwise be drawn to the faith.

However, as my original articles and subsequent rebuttals demonstrate, a literal Adam and a historical fall is central to the gospel message according to Scripture. It is my pleasure to lay them out once again and highlight Adam (and his sinful act resulting in the fall of man) throughout.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12–14)

Notice that Adam and Moses are both spoken of as real, historical persons.

For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:15-19)

Notice the contrasting of the two literal people (obviously Adam vs Jesus) and their actions (sin/trespass/disobedience vs grace/free gift/act of righteousness/obedience) with no hint of Adam being less historical than Jesus, as per below.

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21–22)

Rather than an example of emphasizing and explaining the gospel, to the contrary, this article only goes to further show how far away from the true gospel Paul clearly taught that BioLogos’ contributors actually are. And the Apostle Paul had very serious warnings about those preaching a gospel contrary to the one he preached.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

5. My Trip to the Ark Encounter

The Ark Encounter ties the credibility of the Gospel itself to contrived explanations more befitting an amusement park than a serious inquiry into the truth.

This is simply a hit piece against the Ark Encounter that attempts to undermine the gospel relevance contained throughout the AE’s exhibits. The closest anything in it comes to a description of the gospel is the following:

[W]e too proclaim the good news that Jesus Christ is Lord over all, and we desire to see all people enter into a saving relationship with God.

Of course, it never gets into any detail about what the “good news” actually is. And it also contains statements that demonstrate the whole point of my article declaring BioLogos as a false teaching organization. It too admits what the writers of Scripture actually taught but that BioLogos doesn’t believe, for example:

[T]he prodigious proportions of the ark raise one of the central questions the Ark Encounter was designed to answer: could a 500 year-old man really have built this with only the technology available in the Stone Age? Or more generally, could the story really have happened exactly the way we read it in Scripture?

Did you catch that? They question, “Could the story really have happened’ exactly the way the Bible clearly teaches?” Their answer is, “No.” And why is that?

But for this story to be a realistic account of actual history, there are massive implications for things like the fossil record, ice ages, and the diversification of species.

Oh, so it’s because the story of evolution contradicts what the Bible plainly says. This is just yet another admission from them they believe that what the Bible teaches is wrong.

6. Evolution and the Gospel: From Enemy to Harmony

My life has been transformed by the Gospel, and my passion for Christ is exactly what caused me to reconsider my beliefs about evolution after 35 years as an anti-evolution creationist.

This article is about a biblical creationist’s journey into first accepting old-earth ideas and then later the full-blown story of evolution and why he did so.

[T]he young earth implied by a straight-forward reading of Genesis didn’t square modern science . . . . .

In other words, it wasn’t Scripture that taught an old earth and evolution, but “science.” So, science had more authority than God’s word in his mind.

Admittedly, he does mention the gospel and says, “I repented of my sins and trusted in Christ for salvation.” However, that is the extent of the explanation of what the gospel is.

There is no discussion of where sin came from or what the punishment for sin is mentioned, even though Romans 5:12 is clear. And considering he freely admits to having embraced BioLogos’ main beliefs regarding evolution and Scripture, one wonders whether he too actually believes the authors of Scripture were wrong? If not, this man should separate himself from BioLogos as per Romans 16 (and elsewhere) discussed in my first article.

7. Did God Intend Death?

This is the very heart of the Gospel: sin brings death, and Christ brings life. Can this central tenet of the Gospel be true, while the biological observation that life depends on death also be true?

Knowing the massive problem of having to have millions of years of death occur before Adam (symbolic or not) and sin arrived that the BioLogos story of “evolutionary creation” demands, this article attempts to explain how that idea is compatible with Scripture.

This is the very heart of the Gospel: sin brings death, and Christ brings life. Take this away, and there is not much of a point in being a Christian. But can this central tenet of the Gospel be true, while the biological observation that life depends on death also be true? I think it can by a simple distinction: death without sin, physical death, was intended by God, but death with sin—physical death caused by or touched by spiritual death—was not.

The author attempts to do exactly what I have mentioned earlier: to redefine the meaning of death to make the addition of evolution compatible with the Bible’s understanding of the gospel.

She begins with a comment made by a preacher who supposedly said:

“God never intended death! Death in all its forms is a contradiction of God’s creation, and a result of sin!”

Of course, the preacher was likely trying to convey the “big picture” truth of God’s Word that sin and death entered the world at the fall, that death was an intrusion that will not be present in the new heavens and new earth to come.

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:26)

While true that simply saying “death in all its forms is contradictory to God’s original creation” is somewhat inaccurate without further explanation, the Scripture above cannot be false. So the question is, “What is death?”

As the Bible itself is the final authority and can give a true understanding of categories of life and what is truly “alive” (i.e., what exactly can “die”?), that is from where Christians should gain a fuller understanding.

Apparently, the author has not considered this very carefully from a biblical standpoint, as she describes her “epiphany moment” as to why she realized her previous understanding of death was incorrect by saying:

[A]s chance would have it, I had an itch on my arm. When I scratched it, I noticed some skin came away under my nail. Looking at that little bit of sloughed off skin, the spell was broken. This was death too. Was my skin cells’ death also a result of sin?

Of course, this is not a full, biblical view of death. For example, your skin cells are not living creatures. They are parts of a living creature designed by God to serve that creature and are subsequently disposed of and replaced. There is no living being or living thing or nephesh that dies in the process.

When Adam’s sin brought the curse upon creation, death came to all “living creatures,” transliterated nephesh chayyah from the Hebrew, which is a very specific designation for people, animals, birds, and sea creatures.

This curse did not apply to plants, as plants are not considered to be living beings (i.e., nowhere called nephesh in Scripture). So, in contrast to the biblical understanding, it’s interesting the author then uses the specific example of plants to attempt to further her argument.

The preacher was talking about human death, of course. But every human’s life is dependent on the death of others. When I eat, I destroy life. Robert Farrar Capon has reasonably said, “A vegetarian creation is no answer. It is only our human chauvinism that is satisfied when literal bloodshed is ruled out. The lettuces still, in their own way, take a dim view of having to cease being lettuces; as they can, they fight it.”

But a “vegetarian creation” isn’t human “chauvinism,” it’s a biblical truth as Genesis 1:29–30 clearly states (emphasis mine):

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

The Bible is clear that man and animals were vegetarian before sin entered the world through Adam’s sin. And even beyond this biblical refutation (which should be her final authority), one wonders why she gives any credibility (reasonably said?) to the quote in the first place—as we have no record of a lettuce “communicating a ‘view’” or fighting against being made into a Caesar salad whatsoever!

Astonishingly, it is from these simplistic and unbiblical foundations that she begins to attempt to deconstruct the meaning of the scriptural understanding of death and how it applies to Paul’s arguments. She says:

First, recognize that Paul’s language is pretty flexible when it comes to what he means by “death.” In Romans 7:9-11, Paul writes:

I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

It is an odd thing for a dead man to write a letter. Whatever he meant that sin “killed me,” Paul did not mean that he experienced the cessation of metabolic processes in his somatic cells. Similarly in 1 Corinthians 15:31 he talks about dying daily, and how the body must be sowed in the ground like seed so that it can be raised again. Paul does write about physical death, but he writes as often about a death that cannot be reduced to the one-time physical event: spiritual death. This is the death that entered with sin.

Of course, the meaning Paul uses in each of these instances is no mystery, and attempting to paint his usage as “flexible” (to modify its meaning away from its common understanding) is simply unwarranted in light of what we have already unpacked in my first two original articles and the rebuttals so far.

And, by the way, she never explains the gospel in this article. Rather, she “un-explains” it.

8. From Stardust to the New Jerusalem: Gospel-Centered Preaching in an Evolving Universe

Standing on the front lines, how do pastors preach and teach the biblical gospel in a way that helps skeptical congregants take a fresh look at their long-held beliefs about creation and human origins?

This is a very revealing video presentation from Pastor Leonard J. Vander Zee, where he attempts to explain how to make “evolutionary creation” more palatable to Christian congregations and advance BioLogos’ mission in the average church [Time Stamps (TS) provided below].

It is probably the most revealing of the nine search results that clearly demonstrates BioLogos’ promotion of a different gospel than what Scripture reveals.

Apparently, he recognizes that this agenda may cause believers to balk at the concepts presented, as at around the 5:15 mark in his presentation, he pops up a slide titled Prerequisites for Pastoral Sensitivity and comments, “. . . .  no one like to be pushed into exploring a new and fearsome topic.”

He then emphasizes point number two on his slide, that while teaching BioLogos’ “evolutionary creation” story, it is best to:

Always be clear about your commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture and the centrality of redemption in Christ.

As I said earlier, to the average Christian, that sounds very orthodox (apparently this was his intention, to assure audiences of the legitimacy of teaching “evolutionary creation”), but how does that practically play out in his teaching?

Well, at the 11-minute mark he expresses that it’s a Pastor’s duty to explain “apparent contradictions” between science (read: the story of evolution) and specific Bible passages and “guide them in this essential work” (of marrying evolution and the Bible).

And throughout his presentation he suggests reinforcing the idea that pastors should try to teach wholistic meta-narratives (big picture ideas rather than specifics) when advancing BioLogos’ mission to convince Christians to accept the story of evolution, and to especially stress that “the Bible is not a history book in the modern sense of the word.”

To add credence to this idea, he references the book Genesis; History, Fiction or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters, whose authors are James Hoffmeier, Gordon Wenham, and (surprise, surprise) false teacher Kenton Sparks. And he highlights that although they have varying takes on the creation account, none of them believe Genesis was a literal description of actual events. He then announces that he believes all their various views are acceptable for Christians to hold. [TS 21:10–22:00]

Now obviously, there is no true gospel without the historic Jesus. But as we’ve seen from an examination of Scripture throughout my original articles and these rebuttals, Jesus himself affirmed the historicity of Genesis 1–11, died a substitutionary death to overcome sin and death introduced by Adam, and was genealogically connected to the first man, Adam, the son of God (which Sparks denies: see my second original article for quotes).

However, Vander Zee continually attempts to legitimize BioLogos’ evolutionary creation mandate. He states that there are fundamental truths that form the Christian story: that God is the Creator of all things, human beings are made in God’s image, and they fell into sin and rebellion, which spread to all people [TS 24:18–24:42], and later mentions Jesus coming, born of a virgin to do his redeeming work.

Jesus sends His Holy Spirit, and it's all handed over to 12 Apostles and the church, and 2000 years later, we are continued participants in that story. Of course, he quotes this all as real history [TS 26:40–27:00].

But he begins to let the heretical cat out of the bag about halfway through his talk where he says,

God’s creation is evolving; God’s salvation of creation is evolving (emphasis mine) [TS 28:25-30].

He then weaves a grand tale of how God supposedly created by regurgitating the story of evolution: Big bang, star formation, geological evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution until the creation of man, where he shows a classic “ape-to-man” diagram on the screen.

And then the veneer of biblical Christianity falls apart as he attempts to explain where sin came from within this story.

As the story spills further into history, dark shadows of sin spread over the lives of these magnificent free creatures. They rebel, they grasp for more, they envy and mistrust even the one that created them. And the poison of their rebellion spreads like a virus to all their kind, bringing alienation and destruction. And bringing alienation and destruction into the lives of the creatures over which they rule [TS 39:45–40:17].

Again, let’s contrast that with the Bible’s declaration of how sin (and death: remember that in Vander Zee’s explanation, there have already been billions of years of death and suffering at this point in history) entered the cosmos:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[ because all sinned . . . . (Romans 5:12)

As many headings of these passages in various Bibles summarize: “Death in Adam, Life in Christ.”

So, what did Jesus’ life and death accomplish according to this BioLogos representative?

By His death and resurrection, He opens the door to a new creation [TS 41:20–41:27].

If that sounds rather vague, it's because it is. What then is salvation?

Vander Zee reveals what salvation means in the “evolutionary creation meta narrative” being promoted by BioLogos when he says,

Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity in the spoiled creation order. Salvation is about becoming human. And as restored human beings, and as restored human beings in God’s image bringing the created order to its full glory (emphasis mine) [TS 41:34–41:53].

But that is not what Scripture says. Jesus’ ministry purpose is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 1:15:

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners . . . .

[H]e has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . . . (1 Corinthians 15:3)

The meaning of salvation is not “evolving.” Notice Paul’s use of the phrase: “in accordance with the scriptures” repeated again and again, similar to Jesus’ emphasis on the authority of God’s Word saying, “Have you not read?” and, “It is written” throughout his ministry. Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished salvation through the payment of sin—period! And remember, where did sin come from?

[S]in came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned  . . . . (Romans 5:12)

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Salvation is not about “becoming human.” Everyone on earth (and all that have ever been), whether unregenerate or regenerate are already humans, made in the image of God.

If this is one of the most prominent examples of mentioning and emphasizing the “gospel” that BioLogos could highlight on their website, then let it be a warning to believers that they truly are a false-teaching organization.

9. The Creator is the Redeemer

“New creation” is an apt summary of the Gospel: Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of a new state of being where “creation” is happening again for those who believe.

This is a rather nonsensical article by Pete Enns (who I demonstrated was a false teacher by the use of his own words in my second original article). The closest to an explanation of the gospel in it is when he mentions,

The same point is made in 2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.” “New creation” is an apt summary of the Gospel. The good news is that there is a new state of being where “creation” is happening again for those who believe.

And:

Central to all of this is the resurrection of Jesus. Rising from the dead is the true beginning of this new mode of existence in which believers—right here and now—take part. Believing in Jesus means you are benefiting from Jesus’ resurrection already now in the new life you experience by the power of the Spirit. As Paul puts it, those who are “in Christ” have been raised with Christ here and now to a new life (Ephesians 2:6) Conversion is much more than believing a set of doctrines; it is a transformation from the inside out, a new life—a new creation.

Unfortunately, that’s as far as it goes. There is no explanation of the law, where sin and death originated, repentance, and why Jesus was sent, etc.

And in my opinion, there’s likely a reason for that. Although this article may appear fairly orthodox to some readers, one should understand that even though he admits it is what Scripture teaches, Enns does not believe in a literal Genesis or a literal Adam.

Enns identifies himself as a false teacher by admittedly teaching in contradiction to the Bible. So, getting “into the weeds” of sin’s origins and the details of the biblical gospel would likely be a tough go for Enns. And he is platformed by BioLogos quite prolifically.

Hemphill’s Article

Before wrapping up, I should also mention Hemphill’s article, “When is ‘Human Wisdom’ Suspect?” (which, by the way, did not show up on my search of “gospel”). She used it as an example of why my estimation of BioLogos’ lack of emphasizing and explaining the gospel was false (again, I invite readers to read her article3 in full as well as the others).

It is certainly not an article explaining the gospel. In essence, it’s simply an attack on biblical creationists’ supposed use of an argument stating science (and by that of course she means evolution) shouldn’t be accepted because it is simply “human wisdom.” Her opener:

If you spend time talking to Young Earth Creationists (YECs) about science, you have probably heard someone counter a scientific claim with the contention that it is just “human wisdom,” and Christians should rely on “God’s wisdom” instead. This dichotomy comes up so often, it is worth taking a serious look at the Bible passage in 1 Corinthians that people are alluding to when they invoke this distinction. Does what the Bible says really justify or require dismissing human learning and scientific achievement?

Now while some biblical creationists may have said such things, I know of exactly zero professional creation apologetics organizations (certainly not the Answers in Genesis ministry) that have made such a claim (i.e., it’s a strawman argument).

Biblical creationists do not dismiss “human learning and scientific achievement.” We dismiss the unbiblical interpretations made by those studying the brute facts (that we all have access to) and the conclusions they derive from them used to support the story of evolution.

Facts do not speak for themselves; hence the reason for opposing lawyers arguing different interpretations of past events based on the exact same set of facts in courtrooms, for example. The creation/evolution debate is situated in the realm of historical science, not repeatable, observable, operational science. This means facts are then interpreted according to an a priori commitment that one holds before even examining “the facts.”

As usual for BioLogos contributors, Hemphill mentions the gospel several times, even citing Bible verses. She even describes the centerpiece of the gospel:

Then we come to the centerpiece of the gospel: Jesus Christ suffering the ultimate humiliation of crucifixion in order to defeat sin and death and bring salvation to those who don’t deserve it and can never earn it.

And on the face of it, that is a fine description of the gospel based on scriptural revelation, if you assume a biblical understanding of where sin and death came from. A biblical reminder once again:

[S]in came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned . . . . (Romans 5:12, emphasis mine)

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22, emphasis mine)

Does Hemphill mention any of this? No. Her article does not contain an explanation of the gospel.

Summary

With hundreds of articles and videos available, clearly, the gospel is not emphasized or explained anywhere on the BioLogos’ website. Although it may be somewhere, I could not find even one instance where a full, biblical explanation of the gospel is posted on their site.

As a matter of fact, while there are numerous mentions of “the gospel” sprinkled throughout (apparently to make it seem more palatably “Christian,” as Vander Zee’s video explaining how to better promote their “evolutionary creation” story to churchgoers indicates), the only examples of attempting a deeper explanation of the gospel inevitably turn out to deconstruct the very fabric of the gospel itself!

And again, that is driven by the anti-biblical conclusions regarding death before sin and a non-literal Adam that a majority of their contributors take and that their organization welcomes. Truly, the more you research the BioLogos organization, the more you come to realize how corrupted their teaching is.

BioLogos is truly full of wolves in sheep’s clothing, false teachers who often promote “another gospel” and admit that they teach contrary to what they admit Scripture teaches. Which is again why I’ve titled these responses, “Repent.”

Brothers and sisters in Christ, be aware of what God’s Word says regarding these things. The Scripture’s warning bears repeating:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)

Do not be deceived by this false teaching organization that teaches contrary to the true gospel.