Evolution and the Creeds?

[shernren]

Are there any creeds or anything in the creeds of Christianity which would specifically disallow TE in the corpus of official Christian belief? Curious.

 

[billwald]

No. The creeds were written to counter problems of their day, not our day.

 

[SBG]

Creeds were about core beliefs that should be accepted by all Christians.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, there isn't.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are there any creeds or anything in the creeds of Christianity which would specifically disallow TE in the corpus of official Christian belief? Curious.

resurrecting an old but interesting thread that wasn't answered.

depends on how you define creeds.
for instance, in my denomination adherence and subscription to the Westminster Confession is required of all officers: teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons. But not of the average member, however there are a few micro denominations of Presbyterians that do required subscription to the WCF for membership.

The WCF is a YECist document although the PCA has modified the understanding to allow OEC, FI, and Gap to sign the confession without taking a formal exception.
TE is absolutely prohibited from all offices.
The OPC has had a church trial and removed a TE who believed that Adam was created from an existing evolved ancestor. so the issue is really settled for now. no TE officers are allowed.

 

[1denomination]

The OPC has had a church trial and removed a TE who believed that Adam was created from an existing evolved ancestor. so the issue is really settled for now. no TE officers are allowed.

May the lord have mercy on us for we(christians) truly make a mockery of his church.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

May the lord have mercy on us for we(christians) truly make a mockery of his church.

what is interesting is that the founder of the OPC, J.G.Machen was probably a mild form of TE, which he learned from one of the most important turn of the 20thC theologians BB Warfield who, although he moved to the right as he aged, was TE. Neither men could be ordained in the OPC or PCA today.

 

[1denomination]

Neither men could be ordained in the OPC or PCA today.

You know it makes you have to wonder Would christ be welcomed in most churches of today.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You know it makes you have to wonder Would christ be welcomed in most churches of today.

that is easy enough to answer:

Jam 2:2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes,
Jam 2:3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,"
Jam 2:4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?
Jam 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world {to be} rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
Jam 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court?

Matt 25:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

please note, that there is nothing about Genesis, or the days of creation, in these commandments.

it is love first for God, then for the brethren, and finally for our neighbors that characterizes a Christian, not his stand on science nor the length of the days of creation or if he believes God can use evolution to create.

the whole debate here is of secondary importance, yet some would destroy love and unity in order to preserve a YECist standard in the church.
it is not essential. although i'd argue that it is not adiaphora either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

that is easy enough to answer:



Matt 25:



please note, that there is nothing about Genesis, or the days of creation, in these commandments.

it is love first for God, then for the brethren, and finally for our neighbors that characterizes a Christian, not his stand on science nor the length of the days of creation or if he believes God can use evolution to create.

the whole debate here is of secondary importance, yet some would destroy love and unity in order to preserve a YECist standard in the church.
it is not essential. although i'd argue that it is not adiaphora either.

The Gap theory solves all those problems, but, men like to argue. Myself included.

 

[gluadys]

for instance, in my denomination adherence and subscription to the Westminster Confession is required of all officers: teaching elders, ruling elders and deacons. But not of the average member, however there are a few micro denominations of Presbyterians that do required subscription to the WCF for membership.

The WCF is a YECist document although the PCA has modified the understanding to allow OEC, FI, and Gap to sign the confession without taking a formal exception.
TE is absolutely prohibited from all offices.

That the WCF is a YECist document would surprise most Canadian Presbyterians.

As in the PCA adherence and subscription to the WCF is required of all officers: teaching elders, ruling elders and diaconal ministers (our term for deacons).

But there is no bar to full acceptance of evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That the WCF is a YECist document would surprise most Canadian Presbyterians.

As in the PCA adherence and subscription to the WCF is required of all officers: teaching elders, ruling elders and diaconal ministers (our term for deacons).

But there is no bar to full acceptance of evolution.

i'd be curious if you'd ask around and see how TE subscribe to the WCF.

There appears to be two different ways.
the first, is what you express here, that the WCF is not YECist.
the second, i understood to be the majority way, was to say that "in the space of six days" was not essential to the system of doctrine as taught by the WCF and therefore not an issue because it is adiaphora.

i'd be interested in following up, for i have a long essay on the topic that i'll amend with what you discover.

thanks.


the best online reference i am aware of on the YECist nature of the WCF was at capo. it has been down for a long time now. so here is the waybackmachine copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20031207155653/capo.org/creationstudies.html
it looks like it is all there.
excellent read.

 

[gluadys]

i'd be curious if you'd ask around and see how TE subscribe to the WCF.

I'm afraid I can't help you there. The fact is that there has not been a question about the compatibility of WCF and evolution brought to General Assembly for discussion since 1942. (I know this because I have personally reasearched all the Acts & Proceedings back that far back for a project I was doing.) It is simply not an issue. And when the issue is not on the table, there is no serious theological thinking about it.


We certainly do have clergy who are very conservative in their theology, and who probably do lean to YECism. I expect that if they have thought of bringing the question forward, that it has not received approval at Session or Presbytery and so never become a denomination-wide discussion.


As for asking around, the clergy and theological professors I know generally plead ignorance of the issue. They don't know the theological case being made for YECism. And they don't consider it important enough to add to their agenda. I doubt any of them have ever considered whether accepting evolution violates their subscription to WCF.

I expect that if it were drawn to their attention, it would be dismissed on several grounds:

1. The WCF is a document of its time and professes the faith in the terms of its time.

2. The PCC has already modified how it interprets the WCF in regard to Chapter XXIII. Even at its formation in 1875, a caveat on this Chapter was raised, and in 1954 The Declaration of Faith on Church and Nation was adopted as a subordinate standard, effectively replacing WCF XXIII.

3. Even though the WCF contains anti-Catholic language, including reference to the Pope as anti-Christ, the PCC today works in ecumenical cooperation with the Church of Rome. No one considers this a violation of the subscription to the WCF.

In fact, the Committee on Church Doctrine has been asked about editing the WCF to exclude these references.

4. In Living Faith, adopted as a subordinate standard in 1990, the PCC declares
"Concerned with the well-being of all of life
we welcome the truths and insights
of all human skill and science
about the world and the universe." LF 2.4.1

If the WCF is interpreted in an anti-science manner, the church would be asking its clergy to simultaneously subscribe to subordinate standards which conflict with each other.



None of this speaks directly to the question of whether or not the WCF is a YECist document. I suspect the response I would get in most cases is that it is a silly question.

If anyone responded seriously the answer might be along the lines that either it is no more YECist than scripture or that it wouldn't matter if it is. In the latter case, it is simply a reflection of the time in which it is written, and as a denomination, we have already modified our stance re the WCF to reflect changed historical situations. We would not, on the basis of the WCF, make YECism a test of faith.

From my own personal perspective, the WCF cannot be a YECist document, because it is not modern enough to be YECist. YECism is basically a 20th century phenomenon. Retrojecting it onto the WCF is an anachronism.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Thank you very much.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to gluadys again.

i put a link to your posting in my subscription/creeds/confession page at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap2.html

The difference between the conservative and liberal POV is considerable and really marks a major split, sometimes i forget and then *pow* , i am reminded.