(e) While we concede, then, that man has a brute ancestry, we make two claims by way of qualification and explanation. First, that the laws of organic development, which have been followed in man?s origin, are only the methods of God and proves of his creator-ship. Secondly, that man, when he appears upon the scene, is no longer brute, but a self-conscious and self-determining being, made in the image of his Creator and capable of free moral decision between good and evil.

Both man?s original creation and his new creation in regeneration are creations from within, rather than from without. In both cases, God builds the new upon the basis of the old. Man is not a product of blind forces, but is rather an emanation from that same divine life of which the brute was a lower manifestation. The fact that God used preexisting material does not prevent his authorship of the result. The wine in the miracle was not water because water had been used in the making of it, nor is man a brute because the brute has made some contributions to his creation. Professor John H. Strong: ?Some who freely allow the presence and power of God in the age long process seem nevertheless not clearly to see that, in the final result of finished man, God successfully revealed himself. God?s work was never really or fully done; man was a compound of brute and man and a compound of two such elements could not be said to possess the qualities of either. God did not really succeed in bringing moral personality to birth. The evolution was incomplete; man is still on all fours; he cannot sin, because he was begotten of the brute. No fall and no regeneration are conceivable.

We assert, on the contrary, that, though man came through the brute, lie did not come from the brute. He came from God, whose immanent life he reveals, whose image he reflects in a finished moral personality. Because God succeeded, a fall was possible. We can believe in the age long creation of evolution, provided only that this evolution completed itself. With that proviso, sin remains and the fall.? See also A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 163-180.

An atheistic and non-teleological evolution is a reversion to the savage view of animals as brethren and to the heathen idea of a sphinx-man growing out of the brute. Darwin himself did not deny God?s authorship. He closes his first great book with the declaration that, with all its potencies was originally breathed life, ?by the Creator, into the first forms of organic being. And in his letters he refers with evident satisfaction to Charles Kingsley?s finding nothing in the theory, which was inconsistent with an earnest Christian faith. It was not Darwin, but disciples like

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment