How are men justified?

[Suggestion Box]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

maybe for General Theology?

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Men (their spirit) are actually are not justified. That is why a person must "to be justified" receive from God the free gift of The Messiah's spirit. So when God looks at the person, He (God) sees The Messiah's spirit and in turn the person having the Eternal Life Spirit of The Messiah is justified.

 

[Ligurian]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

Isaiah 44:22 I have not now called thee, O Jacob; neither have I made thee weary, O Israel.[23] Thou hast not brought Me the sheep of thy whole-burnt-offering; neither hast thou glorified Me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with sacrifices, neither have I wearied thee with frankincense.[24] Neither hast thou purchased for Me victims for silver, neither have I desired the fat of thy sacrifices, but thou didst stand before Me in thy sins and in thine iniquities.[25] I, even I, am He that blots out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and thy sins and I will not remember them. [26] But do thou remember, and let us plead together: do thou first confess thy transgressions, that thou mayest be justified.LXX

 

[Carl Emerson]

Success is spiritual not physical.

 

[BobRyan]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

Well for this topic area you might want to go back a few steps before that with your question. Back ths point.

1. how did mankind become to be in need of salvation?
2. What does it mean to say that an early hominid - smashing in some monkey brains in his cave one day -- suddenly fell -- and would be doomed to the lake of fire??
3. Why does God the Son have to die for a highly uninformed hominid in a cave - to avoid the lake of fire?

 

[The Barbarian]

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful?

Sounds kinda Calvinist, um? But then there's Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 9/11 have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

 

[eleos1954]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

When a sinner turns to God for salvation, it is an act of grace to consider or declare that person to be righteous. It is unmerited favor, and the believer is justified without any merit of his or her own, without any claim to present to God in his or her own behalf except his or her utter helplessness.

The person is justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, the redemption that Jesus offers as the sinner’s substitute and surety.

 

[Suggestion Box]

maybe for General Theology?

No, I specifically put it here because I'm trying to see how people reconcile evolution and justification by grace. Or even if they think that necessary.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, I specifically put it here because I'm trying to see how people reconcile evolution and justification by grace. Or even if they think that necessary.

It would be like trying to reconcile thunderstorms and justification by grace. I think you mean "evolutionary theory" (the theory that explains evolution) not the phenomenon of evolution.

 

[Suggestion Box]

When a sinner turns to God for salvation, it is an act of grace to consider or declare that person to be righteous. It is unmerited favor, and the believer is justified without any merit of his or her own, without any claim to present to God in his or her own behalf except his or her utter helplessness.

The person is justified through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, the redemption that Jesus offers as the sinner’s substitute and surety.

I find this answer to be consistent with scripture.

Success is spiritual not physical.

This, I think, it what would have to be true for a person to reconcile survival of the fittest with the above description of salvation by grace. And yet, I don't think you can truly separate the spiritual and the physical sides of salvation. So I disagree with Carl.

To say that all life evolves by the strong dominating the weak would mean that God's faithful would not be winning on earth, but only in heaven. That would leave room for the strong to dominate and leave their stronger genes to their kids, who would eventually edge out the competition, leaving only certain family lines - all descended from the ones with the fittest traits. Then these family lines would be "justified" in an earthly way - by pure merit. Then you could say, "ah, but the faithful win the day because of the afterlife."

But in scripture I find the opposite to be true more often than not. When God's faithful people truly act the part, they are often rewarded with earthly blessings as well as heavenly blessings. This is because God wants to make his own name great so they will turn to him, and he uses real earthly events to illustrate heavenly events. The sick are made well. The lame walk. The blind see. The dead are raised. If so on earth... how much more in heaven. And when they are beaten and killed under God's punishment, his refining fire, or by martyrdom, we do not see the chosen people eradicated - there is always at least a remnant. Like bacteria after somebody didn't take all their antibiotics... they keep a' comin' back. So even in this earthly illustration of justification, we do not see the weak dying out and the strong prevailing to pass on their genes. Furthermore, the people of Israel routinely win battles and eradicate the enemy, leaving no survivors to pass on their genes, and it is never because of any genetic advantage.

Often, salvation in this life is a sort of foreshadowing of salvation in the next. God demonstrates to the nations that his people Israel, for the sake of his faithful servant David, will prevail in spite of their weakness. He does this to show that it is He, God, who is in control, not mankind. Then when you get to the new testament, we find the true history of Israel being used to illustrate the spiritual reality of the next world: we are saved - this time not from the Philistines or Babylonians... but from Hell - not by our own might but by the power of God, in spite of our weakness.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This, I think, it what would have to be true for a person to reconcile survival of the fittest with the above description of salvation by grace. And yet, I don't think you can truly separate the spiritual and the physical sides of salvation. So I disagree with Carl.

Romans 9
He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I have mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I show compassion.” 16 So then, it does not depend on the person who wants it nor the one who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very reason I raised you up, in order to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

"God did not send Jesus to change His mind about men, but to change
men's minds about God." Fr Richard Rohr.

 

[The Barbarian]

To say that all life evolves by the strong dominating the weak would mean that God's faithful would not be winning on earth, but only in heaven. That would leave room for the strong to dominate and leave their stronger genes to their kids, who would eventually edge out the competition, leaving only certain family lines - all descended from the ones with the fittest traits.

Only if one saw nature as an example to follow. You're thinking of "social Darwinism" which is not Darwinism at all. Darwin himself denounced it in The Descent of Man, writing that to even allow weaker humans to die without help would be an "overwhelming evil." There is evil in nature (in the sense of misfortune and inequity) and we are not obligated to follow it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No, I specifically put it here because I'm trying to see how people reconcile evolution and justification by grace. Or even if they think that necessary.

Evolution is part of the primal order that ruled creation from Adam to Moses. It's an order where the strong prevail and death rules over the living.

Moses is representational of the era of laws that apply to everyone equally whether weak or strong.

Grace is God's answer to the era of laws.

So the era of death doesn't really speak to grace or vice versa, the law era is needed as a point of reference.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question.

There is no contradiction—indeed, there can't be—for we are dealing with distinctly separate categories of thought. The gospel draws from redemptive history, whereas evolution draws from natural history. Evolution pertains to science, while the gospel pertains to theology. Justification before God is a question well within the purview of theology (obviously) but far outside the limited scope of science (also obviously). I don't know if there is a way to bring your question within the scope of science, but it seems to me that your original post didn't do so. I fail to see any connection between the evolutionary history of humans and our justification before God.

An evolutionary creationist would give the same gospel answer as a young-earth creationist: We are justified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. If you want to say that such an answer is inconsistent with evolutionary science, you will have your work cut out for you.

What can the evolutionist say? That God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful?

If salvation is by grace, as evolutionary creationists believe, then things like strength, skill, and intellect are irrelevant (therefore they need not be providentially ensured). God does not show favoritism. He saves the strong and the weak alike, the slave and the free alike, men and women alike, etc.

How do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

I am not aware of any irreconcilable problems. As far as I can tell, there is no inconsistency between the evolutionary history of humans explored scientifically and our justification before God explored theologically. You think the one produces a contradiction with the other but I fail to see any connection between them, much less a contradiction.

@BobRyan asked some good questions which attempted to highlight a conflict but even those failed to demonstrate any. Here are my evolutionary creationist answers to his questions:

1. How did mankind come to be in need of salvation?

By the fall of Adam, the federal head of mankind in covenant relation to God (i.e., federal headship). As a result, we are all covenant-breakers (sinners).

2. What does it mean to say that an early hominid smashing in some monkey brains in his cave one day suddenly "fell" and would be doomed to the lake of fire?

I don't think it means anything. In fact, it's quite meaningless on the biblical world-view of this evolutionary creationist. "The fall" is a reference to the entrance of sin into the world, which happened with Adam (Romans 5:12-21). In other words, sin did not exist until roughly 6,000 years ago with the dawn of redemptive history, when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind. So, cave men could not sin or be subject to judgment any more than an eagle or horse could.

3. Why does God the Son have to die for a highly uninformed hominid in a cave to avoid the lake of fire?

His redemption extended to those with whom he had a covenant relationship, which did not include those cave men back then, just as it doesn't include eagles or horses now.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan asked some good questions which attempted to highlight a conflict but even those failed to demonstrate any. Here are my evolutionary creationist answers to his questions:

1. How did mankind come to be in need of salvation?

By the fall of Adam, the federal head of mankind in covenant relation to God (i.e., federal headship). As a result, we are all covenant-breakers (sinners).

So then a real literal Adam - the federal head of all mankind - made a covenant with God and then broke it - having full understanding of the problem and magnitude of his action. How is it that evolution has just one human and he just so happens to be that well informed and that capable?

2. What does it mean to say that an early hominid smashing in some monkey brains in his cave one day suddenly "fell" and would be doomed to the lake of fire?

I don't think it means anything. In fact, it's quite meaningless on the biblical world-view of this evolutionary creationist. "The fall" is a reference to the entrance of sin into the world, which happened with Adam (Romans 5:12-21). In other words, sin did not exist until roughly 6,000 years ago with the dawn of redemptive history, when God entered into a covenant relationship with mankind. So, cave men could not sin or be subject to judgment any more than an eagle or horse could.

Who created Adam - the cave man? God? Who informed him and gave him his sinless perfect, deathless garden of Eden start? the cave man? a hominid?

3. Why does God the Son have to die for a highly uninformed hominid in a cave to avoid the lake of fire?

His redemption extended to those with whom he had a covenant relationship, which did not include those cave men back then, just as it doesn't include eagles or horses now.

The question keeps going back to "where did Adam come from?" - the Bible says he was a sinless being created by God from the dust of the ground. Evolution claims he evolved from prior hominids. One of those origins gives you a fully informed sinless being in Eden - the other does not.

 

[Suggestion Box]

If salvation is by grace, as evolutionary creationists believe, then things like strength, skill, and intellect are irrelevant (therefore they need not be providentially ensured). God does not show favoritism. He saves the strong and the weak alike, the slave and the free alike, men and women alike, etc.

I agree that these meritorious attributes are irrelevant toward salvation. But if evolutionary theory were correct, then I think it is obvious that it wouldn't just stop when humans came on the scene... it seems that this theory would expect the trend to continue into modern times, and on into the future. This means that random genetic mutations would be the driving force behind changes to men and beasts alike. In that case, things like strength, skill, and intellect would be very relevant. Maybe you could say that they're only relevant towards earthly things and not toward salvation - but then you're dividing up the spiritual and earthly realms more than I am comfortable with. What happens here affects what happens there and vise-versa.

In Psalms 10:4-6, we see what we see every day: that the successful yet wicked evildoer triumphs over the poor and lowly. But we also see that this only happens for a time, and then God sees and helps the helpless as in Psalms 10:14. The trend we see every day - that the fit survive and outlast the unfit - is actually not the driving force behind change. It appears so... but ultimately it is not.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree that these meritorious attributes are irrelevant toward salvation. But if evolutionary theory were correct, then I think it is obvious that it wouldn't just stop when humans came on the scene... it seems that this theory would expect the trend to continue into modern times, and on into the future. This means that random genetic mutations would be the driving force behind changes to men and beasts alike. In that case, things like strength, skill, and intellect would be very relevant. Maybe you could say that they're only relevant towards earthly things and not toward salvation - but then you're dividing up the spiritual and earthly realms more than I am comfortable with. What happens here affects what happens there and vise-versa.

Why would you think nature is a good place to find human ethics? Evolutionary theory is correct; we have repeatedly confirmed that random mutation and natural selection tends to make a population more fit. But "fit" only means "more likely to live long enough to reproduce." It doesn't necessarily mean "better."

 

[ViaCrucis]

It appears to me that debates about creation typically center around the first few chapters of Genesis. For that reason, it may not seem to be a very important debate. But I am concerned that the debate has more far-reaching implications than that. The question spans the entirety of scripture.

How are men justified?

There is at least the appearance of a major contradiction between the evolutionary answer to this question and the gospel answer to this question. If the primary driving factor behind the growth of mankind is survival of the fittest, according to genetic changes, then it appears to me that men are very much justified by merit. What is fitness but merit? It's certainly not a measure of faith, is it? If that were the case, it would depend more on who your family is than the attitude of your heart toward God.

On the contrary, it appears that the gospel answer "by grace through faith", is independent of any genetic factor. What can the evolutionist say: that God predestines immunity, strength, skill, and intellect into the ones he knows will be faithful? This does not seem evident in scripture. In fact, those who are more needy, more sick, poorer, and weaker - the very traits that one would think unlikely to promote survival - are the ones that God is more likely to choose. His strength is made clear in our weakness.

So how are men justified, and how do you reconcile your view with that of the whole of scripture?

Building an ethical system off of natural observations isn't a great idea. It's demonstrably true that populations of organisms that are able to pass on their genes to the next generation are biologically successful. But that has nothing to do with ethics. If you have two types of finches, both eat nuts but one also supplements their diet with bugs, and if a tree parasite comes along and wipes out the nut trees from the environment, both finches will suffer, but the finches that eat bugs will have a better chance to survive. That's what "survival of the fittest" means. The finches didn't have some kind of "merit", they simply were able to adapt to the changes in their environment better than the other group of finches who couldn't. And so one group of finches survives by eating and reproducing, and the other group may die off because there isn't enough food to sustain themselves.

There isn't a lesson in morality to be gained from this. It is purely an observation that some populations survive better than others given the circumstances of their environment.

Taking this and turning it into a moral lesson, or an ethical system--or worse, a question of soteriology, how are human beings saved, then that is itself deeply problematic. The problem isn't with the scientific observations of nature, the problem is with the wrong applications of those observations to moral philosophy or theology.

After all, if there is a drought and food becomes scarce, we don't blame the sky for not sending rain and then say that the sky leads men to bad behavior if they begin to fight over food resources. The problem behind men competing over food resources is sin, we are broken creatures plagued by the stain of original sin and living in a fallen world in which there is suffering, death, disease, etc. We don't look to nature, but to the revelation we have received from God in Christ Jesus our Lord. That we are sinners and in need of redemption, and that the promise of God in Christ is that He who bore our sin and shame on the cross reconciles us to God, and by His glorious resurrection has defeated and conquered the tyranny of sin, death, hell, and the devil. And even as God has raised up Christ, so shall He raise us up on the Last Day, and God will make all things new.

-CryptoLutheran