The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,136
- 12,993
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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 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?
Creation first. What was created in Ge: was 3 species of flesh that Adam was given dominion over. Flesh that flies, flesh that swims, and flesh that walks on dry land. Each pasture is slightly different, so the flesh that live there are also slightly different. What will never happen is a species cross-over. Whales are birds that learned to 'fly in water' over 4M years, that is as close as it gets to species jumping.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?
It might be better to ask? Why are men needing to be told we have been justified?
@ViaCrucis :
Before I continue, please clarify something: do you believe human evolution is ongoing even at present, or did it stop at some point in the past?
Before I continue, please clarify something: do you believe human evolution is ongoing even at present, or did it stop at some point in the past?
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
Which groups of humans prevail under natural pressures is, in many cases, an ethical question. Not just because of their own decisions, but because of God's decision. He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes.
Merit may be the wrong word for what I'm describing. I'm saying that the strong appear to dominate the weak, but in the long run they don't, because God intervenes. And for strength, you can substitute any other genetic trait that makes one group "better able to adapt to changes in the environment" (Batatcite*. I'm going to call that a Batatcite gene, just for brevity's sake). So instead of "men are not justified by merit", I should say "men are not justified by genetic traits which make them better-able to adapt to changes in their environment". Men are not justified by their Batatcite genes.
Now, you're saying that if some finches die out it's not because they were less ethical. It was because of their Batatcite genes. Agreed. With finches, it's not a matter of ethics - because finches aren't morally responsible (or are they? don't answer - it's another question entirely, and not for this thread. I'll acquiesce). But we're not talking about finches, we're talking about humans. If we apply the same example to humans, but maybe change the specifics to make sense for humans... why did one group of humans die out and the other prevail?
God chooses who lives and who dies among humans (evidence available upon request). Death is not always an indicator of who is justified or who is saved, but often times it is, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if he chooses that his saints should die as martyrs in the gulags, then they are very much justified by faith, and very much saved. But if he brings plauge after plauge on Egypt because of their refusal to obey his command, and then kills them in the waters of the Red Sea, it is likely that their death is punishment, and that they were destined for destruction, and are not justified, and are not saved - in spite of their strength. In the case of Goliath, I do not think he was justified. In the case of the wicked and powerful men portrayed in many of the Psalms, who meet their end when God punishes them, I do not think they are justified or saved - in spite of their strength. If they die in this life by punishment, because they clearly do not trust God, and have no faith is his Word, which is Christ, and prove it by oppressing the weak, then I think that this death is a fair indicator of their eternal resting place as well.
Which groups of humans prevail under natural pressures is, in many cases, an ethical question. Not just because of their own decisions, but because of God's decision. He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes. Or he may choose one group because of his promise to their ancestor - not because of any Batatcite gene (or was David chosen because he was genetically Batatcite?), but merely because of His promise. In fact I can't think of one single example where God uses Batatcite genes to decide which groups of humans live and which ones die.
So I think, among humans, when we know God is in control of nature and uses it to punish people - we can't separate nature and ethics. There is definite overlap.
(By the way, sorry about the distracting acronym... I can't help taking myself less than seriously...)
The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?
-CryptoLutheran
The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?
-CryptoLutheran
The ability to digest lactose evolved in some human populations, and so some people can digest dairy, while many others are lactose intolerant. Is it more moral to digest dairy products or is it more moral to be lactose intolerant?
-CryptoLutheran
So, 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?
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?
The Bible says [Adam] was a sinless being created by God from the dust of the ground.
Evolution claims [Adam] evolved from prior hominids.
One of those origins gives you a fully informed sinless being in Eden, the other does not.
I agree that these meritorious attributes are irrelevant toward salvation.
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 vice-versa.
The trend we see every day—that the fit survive and outlast the unfit—is actually not the driving force behind change.
Merit may be the wrong word for what I'm describing. I'm saying that the strong appear to dominate the weak, ...
... but in the long run they don't, because God intervenes.
Instead of, "Men are not justified by merit," I should say, "Men are not justified by genetic traits which make them better able to adapt to changes in their environment."
Why did one group of humans die out and the other prevail?
God chooses who lives and who dies among humans ...
Death is not always an indicator of who is justified or who is saved, but often times it is, depending on the circumstances. For instance, if he chooses that his saints should die as martyrs in the gulags, then they are very much justified by faith, and very much saved. But if he brings plague after plague on Egypt because of their refusal to obey his command, and then kills them in the waters of the Red Sea, it is likely that their death is punishment and they were destined for destruction, and are not justified, and are not saved—in spite of their strength. In the case of Goliath, I do not think he was justified. In the case of the wicked and powerful men portrayed in many of the Psalms who meet their end when God punishes them, I do not think they are justified or saved—in spite of their strength. If they die in this life by punishment because they clearly do not trust God and have no faith is his word, which is Christ, and prove it by oppressing the weak, then I think that this death is a fair indicator of their eternal resting place as well.
It is more moral to be God. Lactose and non-lactose alike are sinful and deserve death and hell. Some of them died as they deserve - not for the lactose, but for the worship of idols, the murder of humans, and rebelling against God. Perhaps God used a great famine to destroy this group and leave a small remnant. If most of that remnant happened to have a gene for digesting lactose, great - but that's not why they survived. The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition.
I cannot understand why you repeatedly say that I'm making that claim. From the very beginning I have done the opposite. From the OP:A population of organisms that survives because it can survive does not mean that population is morally better. Nor should we assume it means that God favors that population over another.
I am not saying that God chooses one group over another because they are more moral. It's to display His glory. He often chooses the weaker group, not because they are more moral, but because they were the least expected. He wants people to see that it was Him, God, and not the strength of men, that won the victory. That's why he slimmed Gideon's ranks down to only 300. That's why he chose David, the youngest of his brothers, who couldn't even fit in armor. That's why children are first in the kingdom of heaven, and the expert scribes are last.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.
By your reply, you'd think I had said "The remnant was spared because of their strength of stomach, a very moral quality." You're acting as if I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying.The remnant was spared, not for their strength of stomach, but because of God's mercy, love, grace, and desire to see his own plan come to fruition.
I said this because God at least sometimes does choose the good guys over the bad guys in a dispute. Now that I look, it's explicitly stated in scripture. There's a whole Psalm devoted to this topic. Psalms 18. Specifically look at Psalms 18:20-24:He very well may choose one people group over another because of its ethical fortitude and not because of its genes.
20 The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.
21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord;
I am not guilty of turning from my God.
22 All his laws are before me;
I have not turned away from his decrees.
23 I have been blameless before him
and have kept myself from sin.
24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.
... sometimes people do use the word "merit" to refer to human strength, skill, or intelligence - the word is not purely reserved for discourse about ethics. Another example of this is in H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds.Human strength, skill, or intelligence is irrelevant because grace is UNMERITED.
Here the author uses the word "virtue" similar to how I'm trying to apply the word "merit". I think this use is acceptable. It's the idea that one can be proud of himself for all the hard work his genes had to do all this time.But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting-power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many—those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance—our living frames are altogether immune. -p210
When I say merit in the [original post], I am really not talking about people doing good things. I am talking about ... the kind of "merit" where you think you deserve something because of your good genetic traits, ...
It's not a matter of God picking between moral and immoral people. If anything, I was kind of wondering if [theistic evolutionists] believed that God was doing this through evolution (selecting moral people).
How are men justified? Not by their genetics. It is by the grace of God, which by definition is unmerited (i.e., good genes merit nothing before God).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?