Anyway, I don't think Terry's view rises to the level of heresy. But that's a
church matter, and you Calvinists will have to duke it out amongst yourselves.
As to the merits, here are a few questions for you, Terry.
First, you cite Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 17), viz.,
Q. How did God create man?
A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female;
formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the
rib of the man...
Then you state: "First, none of these statements from the doctrinal standards
of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are disputed in my view. I readily affirm
the teaching of the standards at every point concerning the creation of man."
But one of my (and Russ's) questions was, if Eve was formed out of the rib of
man, which is MALE genesis, how does that square with animal ancestry? Or do
you believe that Adam was formed out of the chemical compounds, and then Eve
was formed miraculously out of Adam? But if you DO believe the latter, I think
it calls into question the rest of your viewpoint.
Further on, you state:
<<I do not claim that there is any Biblical evidence to support the claim that
Adam's body had animal ancestors. This is not disputed. There is no positive
Biblical warrant for this view. The sole basis for believing that Adam's body
had animal ancestors is a study of God's creation using scientific
methodology. At the same time, my claim is that the Bible does not forbid this
view.>>
I'd again ask the question regarding Eve's origin. Further, I have trouble
with this way of doing theology. It puts natural observation on par with
scriptural revelation, and I don't believe that is valid. Scripture ought to
be given pre-eminence in authority, and the presumption of priority in all
things doctrinal (at least, this is the Reformed and evangelical view).
Regarding the creation of man, we should look at the whole of Scriptural
teaching, which to me makes it a special, creative, interventionist,
non-ancestral event...unless there are compelling reasons to re-categorize
this view. For you, science seems to justify this, but for me the data are too
far removed and weak to compel a change.
Finally, I found this statement very curious:
<<The animal ancestry of Adam's body, if true, is not something which is
"necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation"; ignorance of
this alleged fact has no effect whatsoever on one's knowledge of redemptive
history as revealed in the Bible. >>
You know who could have written that? Clark Pinnock! Yes, the guy who you say
denies the sovereignty of God in "The Scripture Principle." Yet the above is a
perfect, nutshell version of his thesis! Very interesting indeed. Is there a
bit of "selective" hermeneutics going on? I really don't see, then, how your
view is different from Pinnock's.
Jim