The Gospel and Theistic Evolution

[mark kennedy]

Someone asked me to start a thread in the Origins Theology forum to discuss the theology of TE. I like to think that this is not just another form of liberal theology or dialectical humanism.

I assume that if you are posting to this forum you accept the Nicean Creed. You may or may not take Genesis literally. If Genesis is figurative then where do we draw the line on literalism? The ressurection, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Please note that this is a repost from http://www.christianforums.com/t2531575

I thought it would be an appropriate response.

Biblical literalists, what is literal and what is not?

Ok biblical literalists, lets play a game. Lets play What is literal and what is not. And - not just from the perspective of a contemporary person living in the 21st century with the benfits of modern science and technology. Lets pretend that, not only would the Christians of the young earth creationist ilk of today be answering these questions, but also a christian from the seventh century.

Would a christian living 14 centuries ago interpret scriptures as literal that a contempory YEC christian would say are "obviously metaphorical".


Stationary Earth. Literal or not? Psalm 93:1 "[T]he world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (Don't bother telling me that the Earth "can't be moved from it's orbit", because gravitational pertubations such a passing by star could actually eject one or more planets from thier oribts and even from solar ssytem)

The Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."


Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

The sky is solid. Literal or not? Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"


The sky is solid - and real hard. Literal or not? Job 37:18 " can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

Windows in the sky (and fountains in the deep). Literal or not? Genesis 7:11 "7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."


The Earth rests on pillars. Literal or not? I Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, He lifteth up the needy from the dunghill, To make them sit with princes, And inherit the throne of glory: For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, And he hath set the world upon them."


The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Psalm 75:3 "
The earth and all its inhabitants quake. I firmly hold its pillars"


The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Job 9:6 " Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."


So biblical literalists. Where do YOU draw the line between on literalism, and would a biblical literalist of 500 years ago have come to the same conclusion as you?


To answer your question.
The bible is a mixture of fable, myth and genuine history all blended together. Biblical scholars devote their careers to finding what's literal or not. My answer is that it really does not matter. Things can be true without being historically accurate

 

[Willtor]

Someone asked me to start a thread in the Origins Theology forum to discuss the theology of TE. I like to think that this is not just another form of liberal theology or dialectical humanism.

I assume that if you are posting to this forum you accept the Nicean Creed. You may or may not take Genesis literally. If Genesis is figurative then where do we draw the line on literalism? The ressurection, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good question. Let me first talk about what I think the Bible is, and what I think it is not. I know this is not what you asked, but I think it's necessary in order to understand my answer.

Typically, I tend not to think that the Bible was given to us to be used as a science textbook (in any degree). After all, it is within human capacity to do science. It is not within human capacity to learn the truth about God, or to reconcile ourselves to Him. Except in the most extreme monist philosophies, this is totally outside human epistemology. This requires revelation.

The consequence is that I am far more interested in understanding, "what is the author of this particular passage trying to communicate?" than "is this literal?" Of course, this includes, "is this literal?" more often than not, but the larger question provides a framework for exploration.

Questions about origins facts don't make a lot of sense in the ancient world. This is actually why mythologies develop. They develop because, even in the absence of facts, people want the truth about who they are, and how they relate to reality, and how this came to be. Could God have provided Evolution as His explanation? He wasn't missing the facts when He communicated Genesis to Moses. However, the problem with the facts is that they so rarely communicate anything of the truth. This is one of the greatest complaints young-Earth Creationists have against Evolution (in my experience). I don't even know how many times I have heard, "but if Evolution is true, then there is no meaning." Which is why my idea of a strictly semantically correct statement would be, "Evolution is not true, it is a fact." In this sense, for God to give Moses a myth about origins (C.S. Lewis considered it the true myth, or the "chosen mythology") is precisely what was needed, and precisely what humans could not have discovered given an eternity of searching using their own resources.

Early Church Fathers appear to have recognized a particular intent in Genesis. St. Athanasius (the primary architect of the Nicene Creed, the originator of the word, trinitas (Trinity), and orthodox adapter of the words homoousis and hypostasis) seems to have taken Genesis (at least the first few chapters) as an allegory in "Against the Heathen." This is roughly 1500 years before Darwin's voyage aboard the Beagle.

I realize how dense an individual I am. I am not the brightest buib in the box (sharpest knife in the drawer, etc.) and I realize that if I were to reinvent theology from scratch, I would run the serious risk of falling into heresy. Orthodoxy appears to have refuted just about as many as can be invented. As such, I value the input of the early Church in helping me to interpret the intent of various passages. I'm a Protestant, and I was raised in the Baptist Church, which emphasizes personal interpretation. However, my concern over my intellectual prowess (or lack thereof) causes me to return, again and again, to ancient sources for help.

Which passages do I view literally, and which are figurative? It depends on the passage. Miraculous occurrences certainly don't offend my sensibilities (you mentioned Elijah and Elisha), and if they happened literally, then praise be to God. That Christ is literally risen is, of course, the light by which I see.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

earth has 4 corners? OK. let me see how you TEs interprete this. billions of years ago , there's the a pangaea(any contention?) you can find the west extreme in south america, north extreme in europe(I guess,) south extreme in antartica and east extreme in Asia. problem solved.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

"Firmament" in Gen 1:6 means the atmosphere we're currently breething
"Firmament" in Gen 1:14 means outer space where suns and stars are
There're 3 heavens, one is the atmosphere, one is the outerspace and one is where God is also where you want to be in afterlife.
don't say sky is solid, you interpret it wrong.
I failed to see why it have to be solid.
you ever say Jack Chick twists Catholicism to attack Catholicism? well, you twist Bible to attack Bible.

 

[Willtor]

earth has 4 corners? OK. let me see how you TEs interprete this. billions of years ago , there's the a pangaea(any contention?) you can find the west extreme in south america, north extreme in europe(I guess,) south extreme in antartica and east extreme in Asia. problem solved.

I don't know of any writer in history who thought that this passage was literal. 4 corners of the Earth has always been viewed as a poetic reference to the 4 compass points (N, S, E, W). This is similar to "as far as east is from west" which doesn't view east or west as destinations to be reached, but that one can travel forever in either direction and not cross some boundary (e.g. one's sins are pushed infinitely far away).

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

"Firmament" in Gen 1:6 means the atmosphere we're currently breething
"Firmament" in Gen 1:14 means outer space where suns and stars are
There're 3 heavens, one is the atmosphere, one is the outerspace and one is where God is also where you want to be in afterlife.
don't say sky is solid, you interpret it wrong.
I failed to see why it have to be solid.
you ever say Jack Chick twists Catholicism to attack Catholicism? well, you twist Bible to attack Bible.

About earth rest on pillars, it's amazing Catholic Tradition always taugh earth is supported by nothing and is immobile in the center of universe. that's still the teaching today, popes can't go against (Catholic) Tradition anyway.
It's in the center so it doesn't need to be supported by anything

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok biblical literalists, lets play a game. Lets play What is literal and what is not. And - not just from the perspective of a contemporary person living in the 21st century with the benfits of modern science and technology. Lets pretend that, not only would the Christians of the young earth creationist ilk of today be answering these questions, but also a christian from the seventh century.

Oh, I am gong to like this game. Let's play!

Would a christian living 14 centuries ago interpret scriptures as literal that a contempory YEC christian would say are "obviously metaphorical".

They took the Scriptures quite literal, I don't think there is any reason to think they didn't.

Stationary Earth. Literal or not? Psalm 93:1 "[T]he world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (Don't bother telling me that the Earth "can't be moved from it's orbit", because gravitational pertubations such a passing by star could actually eject one or more planets from thier oribts and even from solar ssytem)

Actually this is hyperbole. It does not describe a redemptive event, person or miracle. This is poetic prose, of course it's figurative.

The Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."

Of course this is hyperbole with no real explanation about what the four corners are. It means from every place on the globe. It was literally fullfilled by Israel becoming a nation after 2,000 years. They had preserved their bloodline, their religion and their culture. There has never been anything like this, never will be again. Clearly Israel is a miracle, the clearest expression of literally fullfilled prophecy in the modern world.

Earth has 4 corners. Literal or not? Revelation 7:1 "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree."

literal in what sense? You are obviously finding as much obscure hyperbole as you can. Actual events are the key here, but let's see where you take me with this...

The sky is solid. Literal or not? Genesis 1:17 "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

Of course that is figurative, you have another example to look at.

The sky is solid - and real hard. Literal or not? Job 37:18 " can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"

This passage describes an approaching storm. God in the next chapter speaks to Job out of the Whilewind, don't you think the guy standing there is going to describe what he sees? I can tell my daughter she is cute as a button, obviously, I don't mean she is a button.

Windows in the sky (and fountains in the deep). Literal or not? Genesis 7:11 "7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

Hyperbole and no, I don't take this in a stricly literal sense except that it says that it started raining and flooding on a massive scale.

The Earth rests on pillars. Literal or not? I Samuel 2:8 "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, He lifteth up the needy from the dunghill, To make them sit with princes, And inherit the throne of glory: For the pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, And he hath set the world upon them."

Paul describes certain leaders in the early church as pillars. Obviously he is not saying they are holding up a roof and a building. That's figurative.

The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Psalm 75:3 "
The earth and all its inhabitants quake. I firmly hold its pillars"

Figurative of course.

The Earth rests on pillars, and earthquakes are caused by shaking them. Literal or not? Job 9:6 " Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble."

Job is a highly figurative book with some very literal events described. This is from a dialouge, not just an historical account.

So biblical literalists. Where do YOU draw the line between on literalism, and would a biblical literalist of 500 years ago have come to the same conclusion as you?

Why just go back 500 years, why not 2,000 or more? The Scriptures are clear that Adam was the first man with no suggestion that he was some kind of a hybrid from apes.

To answer your question.
The bible is a mixture of fable, myth and genuine history all blended together. Biblical scholars devote their careers to finding what's literal or not. My answer is that it really does not matter. Things can be true without being historically accurate

Ok, my turn:

Moses and the Burning Bush, literal or figurative?
The feeding of the 5,000, literal or figurative?
The parting of the Red Sea and the Jordon river, literal or figurative?
The incarnation, ressurection and assention of Christ, literal or figurative?

I like this game, let's play some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Willtor, good post, I don't see any real problem with it.

 

[ebia]

They took the Scriptures quite literal, I don't think there is any reason to think they didn't.

vs

Actually this is hyperbole. It does not describe a redemptive event, person or miracle. This is poetic prose, of course it's figurative.

?

 

[Numenor]

Actually this is hyperbole. It does not describe a redemptive event, person or miracle. This is poetic prose, of course it's figurative

That's useful to know. Creation wasn't a redemptive event either so there's nothing wrong in viewing the account as figurative.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

That's useful to know. Creation wasn't a redemptive event either so there's nothing wrong in viewing the account as figurative.

Without Creation there's no need for redemption. Without Adam and Eve sinned in Eden Garden, why do we need a Savior?

 

[Numenor]

Without Creation there's no need for redemption.

Not quite right.

Without Adam and Eve sinned in Eden Garden, why do we need a Savior?

That's better. The Fall necessitated the cross, not Creation.

 

[shernren]

Like I said elsewhere, we TEs do believe in sin, and in the Fall, and in the need for salvation. We just don't think it happened just because some bloke stuck a piece of contraband carbohydrate down his pharynx. Whenever we sin and fail to meet up to God's commands we Fall, right there and then. Jesus has come to save us from those very Falls. That's why we need a saviour.

 

[notto]

Why the focus on those that accept evolution? What about the theology of proponets of ID or Old Earth Creationists?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/747
I have consistently argued that intelligent design neither rules out the common descent of life on Earth (Darwin’s single Tree of Life) nor restricts the implementation of design to common descent, as if that were the only possible geometry for the large-scale relationships of organisms. Thus, with regard to this forum, the truth or falsity of common descent is an open question worthy of informed discussion. - William Dembski

It seems that so often young earth creationists like to discuss the theology of Christians who also accept evolution and are severely critical of it when they really are critical of all of those who do not believe like they do including intelligent design proponents who accept an old earth and don't rule out common descent or old earth creationists yet because they like to be in the big tent with them around some issues, they don't openly voice this criticism.

Here is a tip. Those that are Christian and accept evolution are in the same big tent with you if you also accept those like William Dembski.

Do you accept that William Dembski is a Christian whose ideas have merit? Do you think that Dembski's theology must be wrong because he accepts an old earth and universe and doesn't rule out common descent?

How do you think that ID proponents who are not YEC would answer the question:
If Genesis is figurative then where do we draw the line on literalism?

Why not put the question to where it belongs. How do all non YEC proponents respond?

 

[lismore]

Without Adam and Eve sinned in Eden Garden, why do we need a Savior?

You are correct. Jesus died under horible torture to redeem us from the curse brought at adams fall. The bible is clear on this. if you dont believe in a literal fall, you cannot believe in a literal calvary. if you dont have a literal calvary then you are lost.

 

[lismore]

earth has 4 corners? OK. let me see how you TEs interprete this. billions of years ago , there's the a pangaea(any contention?) you can find the west extreme in south america, north extreme in europe(I guess,) south extreme in antartica and east extreme in Asia. problem solved.

Cool point.

In peleg's time the earth was divided. Thats why he was called peleg=division.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Literality is such a modern, dualist term I doubt that it applies to any part of the Bible. One of the first thins one learns in my profession is to evaluate other cultures through the framework of their own expereince, not by imposing your own values. I don't think the Bible can really be understood outside of the context in which it was written.

 

[lismore]

Literality is such a modern, dualist term I doubt that it applies to any part of the Bible. One of the first thins one learns in my profession is to evaluate other cultures through the framework of their own expereince, not by imposing your own values. I don't think the Bible can really be understood outside of the context in which it was written.

Is brining evoltuion theory into the Christianity not imposing your culture on its message? If God had evolution as a message, he would have told us.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

ll, you twist Bible to attack Bible.

Exactly how did I attack the bible. I have raised this issue before only to be accused of "questioning the bible" or "claiming the bible is flase" as you put it "attacking the bible".

How exactly is asking if a passage is literal or not an attack. Is this literal, yes or no. Very simple. I never said it's not the truth, I only asked if it is a literal interpretation..

Your definition of literal seems to be different then mine.
According to my definintiion saying "it's raining cats and dogs" is NOT literal. You seem to be claiming that these passages are literal, but in the same sentance venture to give a non literal intepretation.

I asked if the sky is literally solid like the passage said. You said it's literal then go on to explain how it's actually metaphorical and requires interpretation. If something needs intepretation then its not literal. I don't understand how you can contradict yourself like that.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Oh, I am gong to like this game. Let's play!



They took the Scriptures quite literal, I don't think there is any reason to think they didn't.




Actually this is hyperbole. It does not describe a redemptive event, person or miracle. This is poetic prose, of course it's figurative.



Of course this is hyperbole with no real explanation about what the four corners are. It means from every place on the globe. It was literally fullfilled by Israel becoming a nation after 2,000 years. They had preserved their bloodline, their religion and their culture. There has never been anything like this, never will be again. Clearly Israel is a miracle, the clearest expression of literally fullfilled prophecy in the modern world.




literal in what sense? You are obviously finding as much obscure hyperbole as you can. Actual events are the key here, but let's see where you take me with this...



Of course that is figurative, you have another example to look at.




This passage describes an approaching storm. God in the next chapter speaks to Job out of the Whilewind, don't you think the guy standing there is going to describe what he sees? I can tell my daughter she is cute as a button, obviously, I don't mean she is a button.



Hyperbole and no, I don't take this in a stricly literal sense except that it says that it started raining and flooding on a massive scale.




Paul describes certain leaders in the early church as pillars. Obviously he is not saying they are holding up a roof and a building. That's figurative.




Figurative of course.




Job is a highly figurative book with some very literal events described. This is from a dialouge, not just an historical account.




Why just go back 500 years, why not 2,000 or more? The Scriptures are clear that Adam was the first man with no suggestion that he was some kind of a hybrid from apes.




Ok, my turn:



I like this game, let's play some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. Willtor, good post, I don't see any real problem with it.

Thank you for the excellent response. You have clearly demonstrated that many passages are figurative and not literal, and I would venture to say that something can have a greater / deeper meaning if it is figurative rather then literal. Some people claim that if something is not literal then it is not true. I disagree with that, I think that figurative or metaphorical statements can contain a deeper and richer truth. You have also demonstrated that there really is no such thing as a black and white literalist. Everybody sees parts of the bible as figurative and other parts as literal - the agruements come as to where draw the line.

Moses and the Burning Bush, literal or figurative?

I honestly don't know, but would sau figurative. Its possible I am wrong

The feeding of the 5,000, literal or figurative?

It's funny, I was just thinking of that as I drove to the bank yesterday! Again, I really don't know.

The parting of the Red Sea and the Jordon river, literal or figurative?

Figurative, or at least open to different interpretations. I have heard some explanations that the wind and tide played a role. Certainly not literal in my mind.

The incarnation, ressurection and assention of Christ, literal or figurative?

I am still searching for that answer.