"The theological objections to macroevolution are literally crucial because they tell us whether the Cross was necessary . . . "

This is what Marvin Olasky says in the July 2011 issue of World, page 96.

Mr. Olasky, I look into my heart and can tell whether the Cross is necessary.

Adam and Eve?

[M]ost theistic evolutionists have no room in their Darwinist theory for the special creation of Adam and Eve. They say either that Adam and Eve had "souls" inserted into their bodies while they were part of a herd of hominids, or that - as a BioLogos website article theorized - they "were not individual historical characters, but represented a larger population of first humans who bore the image of God."

-Marvin Olasky in his World Magazine review of Should Christians Embrace Evolution and a discussion of chapter 3, "Adam and Eve," written by Michale Reeves, theological head of Britain's Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. (You can download all of that chapter on the link to Olasky's review. You just have to look for it.) Don't miss World's 2011 Book Issue, just out.

Does "theistic evolution" address an essential of the faith? Our Romans study takes us to Romans 14:1-8 this Sunday, the first part of a longer passage whose theme continues to Romans 15:13. Is this passage helpful in dealing with just what we are to do with the question of theistic evolution, or, to be more precise perhaps, with what we are to do with the brother or sister who is on the other side of that issue from us?

In dealing with our response to "weaker" Christians whose views are contrary to ours, Stott uses the "essentials" versus "non-essentials" dichotomy. He concludes

In fundamentals, then, faith is primary, and we may not appeal to love as an excuse to deny essential faith. In non-fundamentals, however, love is primary, and we may not appeal to zeal for the faith as an excuse for failures in love. Faith instructs our own conscience; love respects the conscience of others. Faith gives liberty; love limits its exercise. No-one has put it better than Rupert Meldenius, a name which some believe was a "nom de plume" used by Richard Baxter:

In essentials unity;
In non-essentials liberty;
In all things charity.

-Stott, The Message of Romans, God's Good News for the World, pp. 374-375.

(For further discussion on the matter of Adam at the BioLogos forum, go here.)

"The Search for the Historical Adam"

The cover story of the June 2011 issue of Christianity Today addresses the latest challenge to the historicity of Adam, one that emerges from "unnerving new genetic science" and argues that only a "tiny group of homonids . . . several thousand individuals at a minimum" and no single individual can account for the genetic diversity that we now see in humans.

The same magazine issue has an editorial entitled "No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel," which seems to suggest where CT stands on this question; but not so fast. The subtitle of the column states, "The historical Adam debate won't be resolved tomorrow, so stay engaged." A careful reading of the editorial suggests that at least someone on the editorial board wants to consider further the thesis that "Adam" may refer to a collective group. "Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head." That approach would reconcile "Adam" with the "complexity of the humane genome [a complexity which], we are told, requires an original population of around 10,000."

Pretty interesting.

But cuidado, CT.